In the 1893 case Johnson Company v. Wharton, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for the sale of land in Texas to a New York resident could be enforced despite an alleged violation of Texas state law prohibiting foreign corporations from owning real estate. The plaintiff, Johnson Company, argued that it had been defrauded by Wharton who sold them land he did not own and sought to recover damages. However, Wharton contended that as a foreign corporation (based in New York), Johnson Company was prohibited under Texas law from owning real estate and thus any contract between them was void. The court ruled in favor of Johnson Company stating that while certain states may prohibit foreign corporations from acquiring property within their borders, such laws do not prevent these entities from seeking legal redress when they are victims of fraud or deceit related to such transactions.

In the dissenting opinion for Johnson Company v. Wharton, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Wharton was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there had been an error made by the lower courts in interpreting and applying contract law principles to this case. They contended that Johnson Company should not be held liable for damages because they did not breach their contractual obligations as alleged by Wharton. According to them, any delays or failures on part of Johnson were due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control which legally excused them from performance under the doctrine of impossibility or impracticability - a well-established principle in contract law meant to protect parties from liability when extraordinary events prevent fulfillment of contractual duties. Therefore, they felt that justice would have been better served if Johnson Company had been absolved from paying damages since they did not willingly default on their agreement with Wharton.