The Gertgens v. O'Connor case in 1903 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of certain deeds. The plaintiff, Gertgens, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. Smith who was allegedly given the deed by his wife before her death. However, Mrs. Smith's will did not include any mention of this transfer to her husband prior to her passing away which led to questions about its legitimacy. On the other hand, defendant O’Connor argued that he bought the same parcel from an executor named in Mrs.Smith’s will after she passed away without knowledge of any previous sale or transfer made by Mrs.Smith during her lifetime. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of O'Connor stating that there was no evidence proving that Mrs.Smith transferred title during her life as alleged by Gertgens and thus upheld the validity of O’Connor’s purchase from executor named in deceased woman's will.

The dissenting opinion in the Gertgens v. O'Connor case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found that an agreement between two parties was not enforceable due to lack of consideration, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed there had been sufficient consideration given by both parties involved in the dispute over property rights and thus, they should be bound by their agreement. They contended that even if one party did not receive as much benefit from the deal as initially expected or hoped for, it does not negate its validity or enforceability under contract law principles. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes adequate consideration and felt this could set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving contractual disputes.