In the case of Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. Hambly, the U.S Supreme Court in 1893 ruled on a dispute over land ownership. The Northern Pacific Railroad Company claimed that it was entitled to certain lands under an Act of Congress from 1864 which granted them every alternate section of public land along their rail line. However, these lands were also claimed by Hambly who had purchased them from the State of Wisconsin under an act granting swamp and overflowed lands to states for reclamation purposes. The court held that at the time when these acts were passed, there was no definite route established for the railroad's line; hence it could not be determined what specific tracts would fall within its grant. Therefore, until such determination was made by location and construction of its road, all other grants by government remained unaffected including those to Wisconsin state which later sold to Hambly. Thus ruling favored Hambly stating his title as superior than that acquired subsequently by railroad company.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. Hambly argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law. The dissent contended that when a party enters into a contract, they are bound by its terms and conditions unless there is evidence of fraud or mistake. In this case, the railroad company agreed to sell land at a certain price but later discovered that it could have sold it for more money elsewhere. However, according to traditional principles of contract law, this should not allow them to void their agreement with Hambly simply because they regretted their decision after realizing they could have made more profit from another buyer. Therefore, the dissent believed that Hambly had every right to enforce his original purchase agreement with Northern Pacific Railroad Company as he did nothing wrong and merely sought what was rightfully his under the terms of their deal.