In the case of Harwood v. Wentworth in 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mineral rights. The plaintiff, Harwood, claimed that he had purchased land from Wentworth who later sold mineral rights to another party without informing him. He argued this was fraudulent as it deprived him of his rightful share of profits from mining operations conducted on the property. However, Wentworth countered that at the time of their transaction there were no known minerals on said lands; hence he did not defraud Harwood by selling something which was not part of their original agreement. The court sided with Wentworth stating that when an individual sells property without any reservation or exception for minerals within it and those minerals are unknown at the time, then they pass along with surface rights to buyer unless explicitly stated otherwise in contract terms. Therefore since there were no known valuable deposits during sale between Harwood and Wentworth - nor any contractual stipulation about future discoveries - latter's subsequent sale did not constitute fraud against former.

In the dissenting opinion for Harwood v. Wentworth, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Wentworth was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Harwood had not been given sufficient opportunity to present his case and defend his rights due to procedural errors at trial level. They contended that these mistakes violated principles of fairness and justice, as they prevented an accurate determination of facts relevant to the dispute between Harwood and Wentworth. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of legal precedents related to property law issues central to this case, arguing instead for a different understanding based on their reading of previous rulings by both state courts and Supreme Court itself.