In the case of Whitney v. Dresser (1905), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Whitney, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. Lick years prior to his death and before it was sold to another party by an executor of Lick's estate named Dresser. However, there were no official records or documents proving this transaction between Whitney and Lick took place. The court ruled in favor of Dresser stating that without any written evidence or documentation supporting Whitney's claim, they could not validate his alleged purchase from Mr.Lick as per Statute of Frauds which requires certain contracts to be memorialized in writing for them to be enforceable at law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Whitney v. Dresser argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important aspects of property law and rights. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Whitney, who had purchased land from a third party, should not be held responsible for paying off a mortgage on said land which he was unaware existed at the time of purchase. They contended that Mr. Dresser, who originally sold the property with an undisclosed mortgage attached to it, should bear sole responsibility for settling this debt as he knowingly concealed its existence during sale negotiations - thus misleading his buyer about the true value and status of his investment. They also disagreed with how lower courts handled evidence presented by both parties; they felt these courts were biased towards Mr.Dresser despite him being guilty of fraudulent practices according to their interpretation of facts and laws involved in this dispute. In conclusion, they opined that upholding such rulings would set a dangerous precedent where innocent buyers could be penalized due to dishonest actions by sellers - something they considered contrary to principles upon which American legal system is based on.