In the case of Gildersleeve v. New Mexico Mining Company, 1895, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for mining services could be enforced despite allegations that it had been obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation. The plaintiff, Gildersleeve, claimed he had entered into an agreement to provide labor and materials for the defendant's mine based on false representations about its value and productivity. He sought damages after allegedly discovering these falsehoods when his work failed to yield expected profits. The court ruled in favor of the mining company stating that even if fraud were proven (which it wasn't), Gildersleeve would not have been entitled to recover any losses because he did not take reasonable steps to verify claims made by the company before entering into their agreement. This ruling established a precedent emphasizing due diligence as necessary in business transactions.

The dissenting opinion in the Gildersleeve v. New Mexico Mining Company case argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of both federal and territorial law, particularly concerning mining claims. The dissent contended that under existing laws, a mining claim could be deemed abandoned if not worked for a certain period, regardless of any improvements made to it by the owner. They disagreed with the majority's view that such improvements could prevent abandonment. Furthermore, they believed that even if this were true under federal law (which they disputed), it was irrelevant because local territorial laws should apply instead - which clearly stated that non-working resulted in abandonment irrespective of any improvements made on land or mine property. Therefore, according to them, since Gildersleeve did not work his claim for several years despite making some improvements on it; he effectively abandoned his rights over it as per prevailing territorial statutes.