The U.S. Supreme Court case Sauder, Administratrix, et al. v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1933 involved a dispute over the interpretation of an oil lease contract between the parties. The plaintiff, Mrs. Sauder as administratrix of her late husband's estate, claimed that Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation had violated their agreement by not drilling for oil on certain parts of the leased land within a specified time period and sought to terminate the lease and recover damages for breach of contract. Mid-Continent argued that they were unable to drill due to circumstances beyond their control (force majeure) including government regulations restricting drilling operations during World War I and subsequent economic conditions making it unprofitable. The court ruled in favor of Mid-Continent stating that force majeure clauses can excuse performance when there are unforeseeable events preventing fulfillment of contractual obligations which are beyond one party’s control such as acts of God or governmental restrictions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sauder, Administratrix, et al. v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to adequately consider relevant state laws. The dissent emphasized that under Oklahoma law, a leaseholder has an obligation to drill for oil diligently and continuously once production begins or else risk losing their rights to the land. In this case, they believed Mid-Continent Petroleum had not met these obligations as there were periods where drilling ceased completely without justification. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "abandonment," arguing it should be understood more broadly than simply physical abandonment of property - including failure to fulfill contractual duties such as continuous drilling operations on leased lands.