In the case of Adams Express Company v. Darden (1923), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Adams Express Company, reversing a decision made by the lower court. The dispute arose when Darden, an employee of Adams Express Company, was injured while working and sought compensation under Virginia's Workmen’s Compensation Act. However, since his contract with the company stipulated that any disputes would be settled according to Maryland law - which did not have such provisions for worker's compensation at that time - he was denied benefits by his employer. Upon appeal to higher courts, it was determined that despite being employed in Virginia where workmen’s compensation laws were applicable; Darden could not claim these benefits as per his employment agreement which specified adherence to Maryland laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Adams Express Company v. Darden, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's ruling that a contract between an express company and its agent could be altered by state legislation. He argued that such contracts were protected under the Contract Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits states from passing laws "impairing the obligation of contracts." The justice believed this clause was intended to protect private agreements from legislative interference. He also contended that if a state law can alter one provision in a private contract, it could potentially change any part of it - undermining contractual stability and predictability. Furthermore, he suggested that allowing states to interfere in these matters would lead to inconsistency as different states might interpret similar situations differently; thus creating confusion and uncertainty for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions.