In the case of Overby v. Gordon, 1899, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Mississippi. The plaintiff, Overby, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from one Mr. Gordon who later sold it to another party without informing him or refunding his money. The lower court ruled in favor of Overby and ordered Gordon to pay damages equivalent to the value of the property at issue plus interest accrued since its sale date. However, on appeal by Gordon's legal representatives before the Supreme Court, they argued that there was no valid contract between their client and Overby because it lacked mutual assent - an essential element for any binding agreement under common law principles governing contracts. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument stating that while both parties may have discussed terms regarding potential purchase price among other things during negotiations leading up to purported sale transaction; these discussions did not constitute formal acceptance by either side thus rendering alleged contract null and void due lack thereof. As such, they reversed decision made earlier by lower court thereby ruling against plaintiff (Overby) in favor defendant (Gordon).

The dissenting opinion in the Overby v. Gordon case argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the law and facts. The dissent believed that there was no legal basis for denying Mr. Overby his right to recover damages from Mr. Gordon, who had sold him land under false pretenses, claiming it contained valuable mineral deposits when it did not. They contended that this constituted fraud and deceit which should be punishable by law regardless of whether or not Mr. Overby conducted an independent investigation into the truthfulness of these claims before purchasing the property - a point upon which much emphasis was placed by those in favor of upholding lower court rulings against awarding damages to Mr. Overby.