In the case of New Orleans Land Company v. Leader Realty Company, Ltd., 1920, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for land purchase could be enforced despite an error in its description. The dispute arose when New Orleans Land Co. sold property to Leader Realty but mistakenly described it as being in a different city block than where it actually was located. When the mistake was discovered, Leader Realty refused to complete the purchase and sought return of their deposit money from escrow on grounds that they were not obligated to buy property other than what had been specified in their agreement. The court ruled against Leader Realty stating that while contracts must generally be fulfilled exactly as written, exceptions can be made if both parties are aware of an error and intended something else at time of signing. In this instance, evidence showed that both companies knew which piece of land was really meant for sale even though its location had been wrongly stated on paper due to clerical oversight.

The dissenting opinion in the case of New Orleans Land Company v. Leader Realty Company, Ltd., argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power and a violation of state rights. The dissenting justices believed that Louisiana law should govern this dispute between two Louisiana corporations over property located within the state. They contended that federal courts had no jurisdiction to interfere with or overturn decisions made by state courts on matters concerning local real estate transactions unless there were constitutional issues at stake, which they did not believe existed in this case. In their view, allowing federal intervention in such cases would undermine states' authority and disrupt our system of dual sovereignty where both federal and state governments have distinct areas of responsibility.