In the case of Underwood v. Gerber in 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute involving land ownership and property rights. The plaintiff, Underwood, claimed that he had purchased a piece of land from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, before this purchase took place, another man named Gerber had already filed for homesteading rights to the same plot of land but failed to fulfill all necessary requirements within the specified time frame due to his absence during military service in Civil War. The main issue at hand was whether or not Gerber's failure to meet these requirements invalidated his claim over the property and allowed for its sale by another party (the person from whom Underwood bought). The court ruled in favor of Gerber stating that because he was serving in war during part of this period when he should have been improving upon his homestead as per requirement; therefore, such circumstances were beyond his control and did not nullify his original claim over said property.

In the dissenting opinion for Underwood v. Gerber, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Mr. Gerber was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and equity principles. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Underwood had not been given adequate opportunity to present his case and defend himself against allegations made by Mr. Gerber regarding a disputed land transaction between them, which they felt violated basic tenets of fairness and justice under U.S law system.