In the 1934 case of Stewart v. Keyes, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Stewart, claimed that he had been defrauded by the defendants who sold him land they did not own and sought to recover damages for fraud and deceit. However, due to a procedural error at trial where evidence was improperly admitted without objection from either party's counsel or intervention from the court itself, it was determined that this issue could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, despite acknowledging potential merit in Stewart’s claim of fraudulence against Keyes et al., his request for relief was denied because he failed to object during trial proceedings when improper evidence was introduced.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Stewart v. Keyes et al., 1934, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying damages for an alleged breach of contract was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to suggest that a valid and enforceable contract had been formed between the parties involved, contrary to what the majority concluded. They also disagreed with how certain pieces of evidence were interpreted by their colleagues on the bench, arguing these interpretations were inconsistent with established legal principles and precedent. Furthermore, they took issue with some procedural aspects of how this case was handled at trial level which they felt unfairly disadvantaged one party over another in presenting their arguments before court.