In the 1912 case of Frosch v. Walter, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Frosch, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had obtained it through inheritance from his father's estate. However, the defendant, Walter and others argued that they were entitled to the property as they were also heirs to this estate. They contended that their rights superseded any sale made by one heir without their consent or knowledge. The lower court ruled in favor of Frosch but on appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas; it was reversed and held for defendants (Walter). When appealed further to U.S Supreme Court, it affirmed judgment given by state supreme court stating that under Texan law at time when original owner died (1873), all children became tenants in common upon death unless there was explicit will specifying otherwise. Therefore since no such will existed here and because other heirs did not give permission for sale nor received any proceeds from it - despite being minors at time - transaction was deemed invalid thus making them rightful owners.

The dissenting opinion in the Frosch v. Walter case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and equity, particularly those relating to contracts and property rights. The dissenting justices believed that the contract between Frosch and Walter should have been upheld as valid because it was freely entered into by both parties with full knowledge of its terms. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of New York state law regarding real estate transactions, arguing that it did not prohibit such contracts but merely regulated them to prevent fraud or undue influence. Furthermore, they contended that even if there were some irregularities in how this particular contract was executed or enforced, these could be remedied through other legal means without invalidating the entire agreement.