The Supreme Court case of Roemer v. Bernheim was a dispute between two Louisiana landowners over the ownership of a tract of land. The dispute arose when one of the landowners, Roemer, claimed that he had purchased the land from the other, Bernheim, in 1876. Bernheim, however, denied that he had ever sold the land to Roemer. The case was brought before the Supreme Court in 1881. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Roemer, finding that he had acquired the land through a valid contract with Bernheim. The Court held that the contract was binding and that Roemer had a valid title to the land. The Court also held that Bernheim had no right to reclaim the land, as he had failed to bring a timely action to challenge the contract. The decision in Roemer v. Bernheim established the principle that a contract is binding and that a party who fails to challenge it in a timely manner cannot later reclaim the property. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still used today to determine the validity of contracts.

In the Supreme Court case of Roemer v. Bernheim, Justice McReynolds delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He noted that under prior decisions, a contract could not be enforced if it violated public policy or was against good morals; however, the majority had held that such contracts were enforceable as long as they did not violate any specific law. In his view, this interpretation of existing law would allow parties to enter into agreements which are clearly immoral but still legally binding. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such contracts would create uncertainty in future cases and open up avenues for fraud and abuse by unscrupulous individuals who may seek to take advantage of unsuspecting victims through these types of arrangements. Ultimately, Justice McReynolds concluded that while there may have been some ambiguity in existing legal principles regarding this issue at hand, enforcing such contracts should remain prohibited due to their potential for harm and injustice caused by them