In the case of Osborne v. San Diego Land and Town Company, 1899, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for land purchase could be enforced despite an error in describing the property's location. The plaintiff, Osborne, had entered into a contract to buy land from defendant San Diego Land and Town Company but later discovered that the description of its location was incorrect. He sought to rescind his agreement on this basis; however, he had already made significant improvements on it under belief that it belonged to him. The court ruled in favor of Osborne stating that even though there were errors in describing the property's location within the contract itself - if both parties understood what parcel of land was being referred to at time they entered into their agreement then such mistakes would not invalidate their deal. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over real estate contracts where descriptions may have been flawed or ambiguous yet did not prevent parties from understanding which properties were actually involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Osborne v. San Diego Land and Town Company, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. He argued that there was indeed a federal question at stake because of an alleged violation of rights under U.S. law, specifically those related to property ownership and contracts. According to him, if a party claims their federally protected rights have been violated by state action or legislation, then it is within the Supreme Court’s purview to hear such cases regardless of whether they were brought up in lower courts or not. Furthermore, he maintained that dismissing this case would set a dangerous precedent where states could potentially infrive upon federal protections without fear of review from higher courts.