In the case of Wight v. Davidson, 1900, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an inheritance. The plaintiff was a legatee under a will and claimed that he had been deprived of his rightful share due to fraudulent misrepresentations made by the defendant who was also named in the will. The court found that there were no grounds for fraud as alleged by the plaintiff because he failed to prove any false representation or concealment on part of defendant which could have influenced him in accepting less than what he was entitled under the will. Furthermore, it held that even if such deception existed, it would not be actionable since both parties were aware about their respective rights and interests in estate at time they entered into agreement regarding division of property.

In the dissenting opinion for Wight v. Davidson, the justice argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law. The justice believed that a contract should be considered void if one party is misled or deceived about its terms, even if this deception is not intentional. In this case, he felt that Mr. Wight had been led to believe he would receive more money than he actually did due to an error in calculation by Mr. Davidson's agent and therefore his consent was obtained under false pretenses which made the agreement invalid from inception itself according to him.