The Schutz v. Jordan case in 1890 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of certain mining properties located in Montana. The plaintiff, Schutz, claimed that he had been defrauded by the defendant, Jordan and his associates who allegedly manipulated him into selling his shares at a significantly lower price than their actual worth. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Schutz stating that he failed to provide sufficient evidence proving fraud or misrepresentation on part of the defendants. Furthermore, it was found that Schutz willingly sold his shares after being fully aware of their value and potential profitability which negated any claims of deceit or coercion from Jordan's side.

The dissenting opinion in the SCHUTZ v. JORDAN case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held Schutz liable for damages caused by his dog attacking Jordan's sheep, was incorrect. The dissenter believed that there wasn't enough evidence presented at trial to prove that Schutz had prior knowledge of his dog’s vicious tendencies towards sheep and thus could not be held responsible for its actions. They contended that without clear proof of such knowledge, it would be unjust to hold an owner accountable for their animal’s unpredictable behavior. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "scienter" (knowledge) as applied in this case and felt it should only apply if there is concrete evidence showing an owner knew about their animal’s dangerous propensities beforehand.