In Hemphill v. Orloff (1927), the United States Supreme Court ruled on a case involving a dispute over land ownership in Alaska. The plaintiff, Hemphill, had purchased land from the defendant, Orloff, who later claimed that he still owned part of it because he hadn't been paid in full for the property. The court found that although there was no written agreement stating how much money was owed or when payment should be made, an oral contract did exist between both parties and could be enforced by law. This decision upheld previous rulings which recognized verbal contracts as legally binding under certain circumstances. However, since there were discrepancies regarding whether all payments had been made according to this unwritten agreement and due to lack of evidence proving otherwise; the court decided in favor of Orloff.

In the dissenting opinion for Hemphill v. Orloff, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal law allowing military officers to retire at full pay after 30 years of service was unconstitutional. He contended that this law violated Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which prohibits granting any title of nobility and providing any emolument without congressional approval. According to him, retirement benefits were not compensation for services rendered but rather an ongoing payment or emolument granted by Congress. Furthermore, he believed it was inappropriate for such payments to be made from public funds without proper legislative authorization as required by the Constitution. Therefore, he disagreed with his colleagues' interpretation and application of constitutional principles in this case.