In the case of Grant Timber and Manufacturing Company v. Gray, 1914, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in Oregon. The plaintiff, Grant Timber and Manufacturing Company claimed that it had purchased certain lands from the state of Oregon under an agreement which allowed them to cut timber on said lands for a specified period before transferring ownership back to the state. However, after this period ended, they continued their logging operations claiming that they still held valid title to these lands due to errors in legal descriptions used during transfer proceedings. The defendant (Gray) who was appointed by President Taft as Receiver of Public Moneys at Roseburg Land Office argued that these lands were part of public domain and hence belonged rightfully to federal government not any private entity or even state governments. After reviewing all evidence presented including original patents issued by United States Government granting these territories initially as swamp-lands but later revoking such status upon discovery of error; court ruled in favor of defendant stating clearly: "When patent issues erroneously for non-swamp land under Swamp-Land Act it passes no title." Thus affirming lower courts' decisions declaring nullity over plaintiff's claims based on erroneous patents.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Grant Timber and Manufacturing Company v. Gray argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law regarding contracts and property rights. The dissent contended that the contract between Grant Timber and Manufacturing Company, which involved timber lands, should be upheld as it was freely entered into by both parties. They believed that there were no grounds for interference by the courts unless fraud or mistake could be proven, neither of which were present in this case. Furthermore, they asserted that if every contract involving land is subject to judicial review based on its fairness or adequacy of consideration given at time of sale, it would create uncertainty around all real estate transactions and undermine confidence in such agreements' validity. Thus, they disagreed with majority's ruling voiding said agreement due to alleged inadequacy of price paid for timberland.