In the Nash v. Harshman case of 1892, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mineral rights in Kansas. The plaintiff, Nash, claimed that he had purchased land from Harshman with an agreement that included one-half of all oil and gas found on the property. However, after discovering oil on the land, Harshman refused to honor this agreement. The court held that while verbal contracts for real estate transactions were generally unenforceable under statute of frauds laws (which require certain types of contracts to be in writing), there was sufficient evidence in this case - including partial performance by Nash - to enforce their oral contract regarding mineral rights. Therefore, it was decided in favor of Nash who received half-interest in any oil or gas produced from his purchased property as per their original agreement.

The dissenting opinion in the Nash v. Harshman case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held Mr. Nash liable for damages caused by his cattle trespassing on Mr. Harshman's land, was incorrect and inconsistent with established legal principles regarding property rights and liability for damage caused by domestic animals. The dissent contended that under common law, an owner of domestic animals is not responsible for any harm they cause while straying unless it can be proven that he or she was negligent in allowing them to stray or had knowledge of their dangerous tendencies but failed to restrain them properly. In this case, there was no evidence presented suggesting either negligence or knowledge on part of Mr.Nash about his cattle’s destructive behavior prior to the incident at hand; therefore holding him liable contradicts these fundamental principles of tort law according to the dissenters.