In the case of Lindsay and Phelps Company v. Mullen in 1899, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving contract law and property rights. The plaintiff, Lindsay and Phelps Company, had entered into an agreement with defendant Mullen to purchase his land for mining purposes under certain conditions which included that if any part of the land was found unfit for mining operations due to water or other causes, then such parts would be excluded from calculation when determining payment amount. However, after discovering that a significant portion of the land was unsuitable for mining due to water saturation issues, disagreements arose over how much should be deducted from the original price agreed upon in their contract. The court held that it is not enough merely to show that some portions were unprofitable but rather it must be demonstrated clearly what specific areas are unfit for profitable operation before deductions can apply as per their agreement terms. Therefore they ruled in favor of Mullen stating there wasn't sufficient evidence provided by Lindsay & Phelps Co., thus upholding contractual obligations while emphasizing clarity and specificity within agreements.

In the dissenting opinion for Lindsay and Phelps Company v. Mullen, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Mullen was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the trial judge which impacted the jury's verdict. They contended that these mistakes should have been grounds for reversal of judgment rather than affirmation. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence had been interpreted and presented during trial proceedings, arguing this led to an unjust outcome against Lindsay and Phelps Company who were held liable for damages caused by their steam boiler explosion on Mullen’s property. The minority felt strongly that procedural fairness had not been upheld in this case due to these issues.