In the 1909 U.S. Supreme Court case Wagg v. Herbert, the court examined a dispute over land ownership in Utah between plaintiff William H. Wagg and defendant Joseph Herbert. The argument centered around whether or not an individual could claim rights to a piece of property if they had been living on it for several years without any legal title or deed to prove their ownership (a concept known as "adverse possession"). In this particular case, Wagg claimed that he had lived on and improved the disputed land since 1880, while Herbert argued that he held a valid patent from the United States government dating back to 1892. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Herbert, stating that his patent was sufficient proof of his right to own and control the property under federal law. They further clarified that adverse possession cannot be used against lands owned by the United States until after they have been patented; thus rejecting Wagg's claims based on his long-term residence and improvements made on said land prior to receiving official documentation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Wagg v. Herbert, 1909, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of contract law. The dissenting justices believed that there had been a valid and enforceable agreement between the parties involved in this dispute over land ownership. They contended that any ambiguity should have been resolved in favor of enforcing contracts rather than invalidating them on technical grounds. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view about what constituted sufficient evidence for proving an oral contract under state law at that time. In their view, both testimonial and circumstantial evidence presented during trial were more than enough to establish such a contractual relationship existed between Mr.Wagg and Mr.Herbert before it was allegedly breached by latter party.