In the case of Tarpey v. Madsen in 1899, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over mining claims in California. The plaintiff, Tarpey, argued that he had rights to certain mining properties based on an agreement made with one of the defendants before they were officially registered as claims. However, this agreement was not recorded or acknowledged by all parties involved at its inception and thus lacked legal standing according to existing laws regarding property transactions at that time. The court ruled against Tarpey stating that his claim was invalid due to noncompliance with statutory requirements for recording such agreements involving real estate transactions. It held that even if there was an oral contract between him and one of the defendants about these mining properties prior to their registration as official claims, it could not be enforced because it wasn't properly documented or recognized by all relevant parties when initially agreed upon. This decision reinforced strict adherence to formalities required under law for valid transfer or acquisition of property rights especially concerning valuable resources like minerals where stakes are high and disputes common.

In the dissenting opinion for Tarpey v. Madsen, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring mining companies to pay their employees in legal tender rather than company scrip violated the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this law interfered with private contractual agreements between employers and employees, which they saw as protected by the Constitution. They also disagreed with the majority's view that such laws were necessary for public welfare or safety reasons, arguing instead that these justifications were merely pretexts used by states to interfere with private contracts. Furthermore, they contended that if left unchecked, such interference could lead to further encroachments on individual liberties and economic freedoms.