In the Stout v. Mastin case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Stout, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who had obtained it through a patent issued by the United States government. However, Mastin argued that he was entitled to this property as he held a tax deed for it which was acquired after paying unpaid taxes on said property while it was still under federal control and before its transfer to private ownership via patenting process. The court decided in favor of Stout stating that federal lands are immune from state taxation until they have been transferred into private hands or otherwise removed from federal protection; thus rendering any tax deeds issued prior to such transfer invalid and unenforceable.

In the dissenting opinion for Stout v. Mastin, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Stout and against Mastin on grounds of contract law, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there had been no breach of contract by Mastin as he had fulfilled his obligations under their agreement. They contended that Stout's claim lacked merit because he failed to show any evidence proving actual damages resulting from an alleged breach by Mastin. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “good faith” in this context and asserted that good faith should not be presumed but proven explicitly through actions or conduct demonstrating honesty and fairness. This disagreement over how "good faith" is interpreted played a significant role in shaping their opposing view on this case.