In the 1916 case of Sim v. Edenborn, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over mining rights in Alaska. The plaintiff, Sim, claimed that he had been defrauded by defendant Edenborn and his associates who allegedly conspired to deprive him of valuable copper mining claims through fraudulent means. The defendants argued that they were innocent and had legally acquired the disputed properties from third parties unrelated to Sim. The court ruled in favor of Edenborn stating there was no evidence proving fraud or conspiracy on their part against Sim's interests. It also noted that even if such evidence existed, it would not be sufficient for recovery because under Alaskan law at the time (which followed general U.S property law), one cannot recover land sold to an innocent purchaser without notice of any defect in title. Therefore, since defendants purchased these lands from others who held valid titles (and not directly from plaintiff), they could not be held liable unless it was proven they knew about potential defects in those titles - which wasn't established here.

In the dissenting opinion for SIM v. EDENBORN, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that prevented Sim from selling his shares in a mining company due to an agreement he had previously signed. Holmes argued that this agreement was not legally binding because it lacked consideration - there was no mutual obligation or benefit between parties involved. He also contended that even if such an agreement existed, it should have been dissolved when one of the original signatories died and their estate did not continue upholding its terms. Furthermore, he believed that Sim’s right as a shareholder to sell his shares should be protected unless there is clear evidence of fraud or deceit which wasn't present in this case according to him.