In the case of Shute v. Keyser in 1892, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Shute, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. Smith who had obtained it through inheritance from his father's estate. However, the defendant, Keyser contested this claim stating that she was actually entitled to the property as she was also an heir to Mr. Smith’s father and her share hadn't been properly accounted for during distribution of assets after his death. The court ruled in favor of Shute based on two main reasons: firstly because there wasn’t enough evidence provided by Ms.Keyser proving any fraud or mistake made during asset division; secondly due to legal principle known as "laches". This principle states that if someone waits too long to bring forth their legal rights or claims they may lose them - which is what happened with Ms.Keyser since she waited several years before challenging Mr.Shute's purchase. This case highlights how important timely action is when asserting one’s rights especially regarding matters like inheritance disputes and real estate transactions.

In the dissenting opinion for Shute v. Keyser, Justice Brewer argued that a contract should not be enforced if it was made under duress or without full understanding by one party. He believed that Mrs. Shute did not fully understand the terms of her ticket contract with the steamship company, which included a clause limiting liability for personal injury to $50 unless declared and paid on at an increased rate before departure. The majority held this limitation valid and binding even though she had no knowledge of its existence until after her injury occurred during travel. However, Justice Brewer contended that such contracts are often signed in haste without time or opportunity to read them thoroughly; thus they should only bind passengers to what is reasonably expected - safe passage from one place to another - rather than hidden clauses reducing carrier's liability.