In the case of Midway Company v. Eaton in 1901, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and mining claims. The Midway Company had purchased land from a man named Eaton who later claimed that he still owned mineral rights to the property because his original sale did not explicitly include them. The court disagreed with Eaton's argument, ruling that when he sold his land to the Midway Company, all rights associated with it were transferred as well - including any potential mineral or mining claims unless specifically excluded in writing at time of sale. Therefore, since no such exclusion was made during this transaction, all ownership and control over these resources legally belonged to the new owner: The Midway Company.

In the dissenting opinion for Midway Company v. Eaton, the justice argued that there was no legal basis to uphold a contract which had been made under duress and without free consent of both parties involved. The justice believed that such contracts were inherently unjust and should not be enforced by law. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "duress", arguing that it should include any situation where one party is forced into an agreement due to circumstances beyond their control, even if physical force or threat is not directly involved. Furthermore, they contended that in this case, Eaton was clearly under significant pressure from Midway Company when he signed the disputed contract - thus rendering it invalid according to principles of equity and fairness.