The Heitmuller v. Stokes case in 1920 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the interpretation of deeds. The plaintiff, Heitmuller, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from Stokes under the assumption that it included certain water rights. However, after purchasing the property, he discovered that these water rights were not included as they had been previously sold to another party by Stokes' predecessor in title. Heitmuller sued for rescission of contract on grounds of mutual mistake or fraud. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating there was no evidence showing any fraudulent intent on part of Stokes nor was there any proof indicating both parties made a mutual mistake regarding what was being sold at time of transaction. Furthermore, court held that even if such mistakes occurred during negotiation phase before finalizing sale agreement - buyer should have conducted due diligence to verify all aspects related to purchase including potential encumbrances like existing easements etc., thus placing responsibility squarely upon purchaser's shoulders for ensuring accuracy and completeness prior to closing deal.

In the dissenting opinion for Heitmuller v. Stokes, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting employment agencies from charging more than two weeks' wages as commission was an overreach of state power and violated constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that this regulation interfered with private contracts between individuals and businesses, infringing upon their freedom to negotiate terms without government interference. They also expressed concern about the potential implications of such a ruling on other industries where commissions are common practice. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that employment agencies were in a position to exploit workers due to unequal bargaining power, arguing instead that competition among agencies would naturally regulate fees. In essence, they felt this case represented an unwarranted intrusion by government into free market dynamics.