In the case of Romig v. Gillett, 1902, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Romig, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from the defendant, Gillett's wife before her death and was now being denied his rightful possession by Gillett who inherited it upon his wife's demise. However, no written agreement or deed existed to substantiate this claim - only verbal testimony from witnesses who alleged they were present during the transaction between Romig and Mrs. Gillett. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Gillett stating that under Kansas law at that time (which followed English common law), an oral contract for sale of real estate was not legally binding unless accompanied by actual possession or significant improvements made on said property by purchaser; neither condition applied here as per evidence presented. Furthermore, even if such an agreement did exist between Romig and Mrs.Gillett , she could not have legally sold it without her husband’s consent since married women were prohibited from selling their real estate independently according to laws prevailing then.

In the dissenting opinion for Romig v. Gillett, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying Mr. Romig's claim on property he had purchased from Mr. Gillett was incorrect and unjustified by law or precedent. The dissenting justices believed that since there were no legal impediments preventing Mr. Romig from purchasing the land at the time of sale, his ownership should be recognized despite subsequent changes in legislation which would have made such a purchase illegal if attempted after their enactment. They also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of certain statutes related to land sales and transfers, arguing that these laws did not apply retroactively and thus could not invalidate an already completed transaction between two private parties.