In the case of Longyear v. Toolan in 1907, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and property rights. The plaintiff, Mary Beecher Longyear, claimed that she had purchased several mining properties from John Toolan under an agreement which stipulated that if any part of the title was found to be defective or invalid within five years after purchase, Toolan would refund her money for those portions affected by such defects. After discovering some issues with the titles to certain parcels of land included in their deal, Longyear sought reimbursement from Toolan as per their contract's terms. However, he refused on grounds that she had not provided him sufficient notice about these defects before initiating legal action against him. The court ruled in favor of Mrs.Longyear stating that there was no requirement for her to give prior notice before suing Mr.Toolan according to their contract's wording and conditions agreed upon at time of sale; hence his refusal based on this argument was unjustified.

In the dissenting opinion for Longyear v. Toolan, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Longyear contradicted established legal principles concerning jurisdiction and conflicts of law. The dissent contended that the case should have been tried under Michigan law, where the contract at issue was made, rather than New York law as decided by the majority. It further asserted that even if New York law were applicable, its application had been misinterpreted by both lower courts and now by this Court too. The dissent also disagreed with how evidence from an expert witness on Michigan laws had been handled during trial proceedings; they believed such testimony should not be treated as conclusive but merely advisory to help inform judges' decisions about foreign laws’ interpretation and application.