In the 1902 case of Reid v. Jones, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Reid, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from Jones under an agreement that allowed him to pay for it over time. However, before he could finish making payments and formally take possession of the land, Jones sold it to another party who was unaware of Reid's claim on the property. When this came to light, Reid sued for breach of contract and asked for specific performance - essentially asking the court to force Jones to honor their original agreement. The lower courts ruled in favor of Reid but upon appeal by Jones; The Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that because there was no written evidence or formal deed indicating that any part of this transaction took place as described by Mr.Reid; his claims were not enforceable under law due its reliance on oral testimony alone which is insufficient proof according Statute Frauds Act (1677). This decision reinforced importance having clear written agreements when dealing real estate transactions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Reid v. Jones argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and established principles regarding jurisdictional matters. The dissent contended that a state court should not be able to exercise jurisdiction over an individual who is not physically present within its borders, regardless of whether they have property or business interests there. They maintained that this principle had been upheld by numerous precedents and saw no compelling reason for deviating from it in this instance. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power if states were allowed to assert their authority beyond their geographical limits without any clear limitations or safeguards in place.