In the case of Shaeffer v. Blair, 1892, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Shaeffer, claimed that he had purchased property from an individual who held title under a Mexican grant which was later confirmed by the United States government. However, Blair contested this claim on grounds that he owned part of the same property through purchase from another party who also asserted to have obtained it via a separate Mexican grant. The court ruled in favor of Shaeffer stating that his title was valid as it traced back to an original and legitimate Mexican land grant which had been recognized by both Californian and federal law after California's admission into statehood. Conversely, Blair’s claim lacked such recognition hence could not stand against Schaefer's legally acknowledged ownership rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Shaeffer v. Blair, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which found in favor of Blair and against Shaeffer on grounds of contract law - failed to adequately consider key aspects of common law precedent. The dissent focused specifically on the interpretation of "consideration" within contracts, arguing that there had indeed been sufficient consideration provided by Shaeffer to make his agreement with Blair legally binding. This contradicted the majority view that no such consideration existed because what was promised by Shaeffer did not constitute legal detriment or benefit under contract law principles. Furthermore, they contended that this case should have been evaluated more broadly in terms of fairness and equity rather than strictly adhering to rigid interpretations of contractual obligations.