In the 1912 case of Friend v. Talcott, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Friend, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties under his deceased father's will which had been previously sold by the defendant, Talcott. However, these sales were made before Friend reached legal age and thus could not legally claim any inherited property. The court ruled in favor of Talcott stating that since the sales occurred prior to Friend reaching legal age and without knowledge or consent from him or his guardian at law (his mother), they were valid transactions according to Illinois state law where this case originated from. Furthermore, it was noted that there was no evidence showing fraud on part of Talcott during those transactions hence making them legitimate.

In the dissenting opinion for FRIEND v. TALCOTT, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to deny Friend his claim on a gold mine due to an expired deadline. He argued that there was no evidence of intentional delay or negligence on Friend's part and therefore, he should not be penalized for missing the deadline. Furthermore, he pointed out that it would be unjust to allow Talcott to profit from a property which he had done nothing to develop while denying Friend who had invested time and resources into improving it. In conclusion, Justice Holmes believed that equity demanded giving more weightage towards actual work done rather than mere formalities of law.