The Werling v. Ingersoll case in 1900 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of certain legal documents. The plaintiff, Werling, claimed that he had purchased property from the defendant, Ingersoll's wife. However, when she died before transferring the deed to him, her husband refused to acknowledge this sale or transfer ownership rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ingersoll on grounds that no valid contract existed between Mrs. Ingersoll and Werling since it was not properly executed according to law requirements at that time - specifically lacking written evidence or witnesses for such transactions involving real estate properties as stipulated by Statute of Frauds laws applicable then.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Werling v. Ingersoll argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Ingersoll, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant errors made during the trial process and these mistakes had unfairly influenced the jury's verdict. Specifically, they believed that certain evidence presented by Werling should have been admitted but was erroneously excluded by the judge presiding over their trial. They also took issue with instructions given to jurors regarding how they should interpret and apply specific laws relevant to this case when making their determination. As such, they felt it would be more appropriate for a new trial to be ordered so these issues could be rectified rather than simply upholding an unjust outcome based on procedural grounds.