In the 1914 case of Toop v. Ulysses Land Company, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Toop, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from the defendant company but was not given proper title to them. He sought to have his title confirmed by court order and also asked for damages due to alleged fraudulent misrepresentation on part of the defendant during their transaction. However, upon review of evidence presented at trial level including contracts and correspondence between parties involved, it was found that no fraud or deceit could be proven against Ulysses Land Company as they had acted in good faith throughout their dealings with Mr.Toop. Furthermore, there were discrepancies regarding payment details provided by Toop which raised doubts about his claims of having fully paid for said lands as per agreed terms between both parties. The Supreme Court therefore ruled in favor of Ulysses Land Company stating that since there was insufficient proof supporting allegations made by plaintiff along with questionable credibility concerning his own actions related to this matter; he could not be granted relief sought through this lawsuit thereby dismissing his appeal.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Toop v. Ulysses Land Company disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed for specific performance on a land contract. The dissent argued that this was not an appropriate remedy given the circumstances of the case, as it would force one party to perform under terms they did not agree upon and could potentially result in undue hardship or unfairness. They believed that damages should be awarded instead, which would compensate for any loss without forcing compliance with disputed contractual obligations. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuse of such rulings by unscrupulous parties who might use them to coerce others into unfavorable agreements or conditions.