In the 1892 case of Lonergan v. Buford, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Lonergan, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from Buford and later discovered that part of this property was already owned by another party. He sued for fraud and misrepresentation on the grounds that Buford did not have full title to all the land sold as promised in their agreement. However, it was revealed during trial proceedings that there were several warnings given to Lonergan about potential issues with the title before purchase but he chose to proceed anyway without further investigation into these claims. The court ruled against Lonergan stating that while sellers are obligated to disclose any known defects or encumbrances on a property's title prior selling it; buyers also have an obligation towards due diligence when they receive information suggesting possible problems with said title. Therefore, since Mr.Lonergan failed his duty of inquiry despite being warned about potential issues with the property's title beforehand; no relief could be granted for his claim.

In the dissenting opinion for Lonergan v. Buford, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to consider important aspects of contract law and equity. The dissent emphasized that a party who has made an agreement in good faith should not be penalized because they were unable to fulfill their obligations due to circumstances beyond their control. In this case, the plaintiff had agreed to purchase land from the defendant but was unable to make payment on time due to financial difficulties caused by economic conditions at large. Despite acknowledging these difficulties, the majority ruled against him based on strict interpretation of contractual terms without considering equitable principles such as fairness and justice which are fundamental in resolving disputes involving contracts where performance becomes impossible or impracticable through no fault of either party involved.