The U.S. Supreme Court case American Ice Company v. Eastern Trust and Banking Company in 1902 revolved around a dispute over the payment of bonds issued by the American Ice Company to the Eastern Trust and Banking Company. The ice company had defaulted on its bond payments, leading to legal action from the banking company which sought recovery of funds owed through foreclosure proceedings against properties owned by the ice company in Maine. However, it was found that these properties were already mortgaged as security for other debts prior to their acquisition by the ice company, thus complicating matters further. The main issue before court was whether or not state laws could be applied retroactively - specifically if Maine's law allowing corporations to mortgage property acquired after issuance of bonds could apply retrospectively so as to affect rights vested under contracts made prior thereto. In its decision, The Supreme Court ruled that such retrospective application would violate Article I Section 10 Clause 1 (the Contract Clause) of United States Constitution which prohibits states from passing any "Law impairing Obligation of Contracts". Therefore, it held that Eastern Trust and Banking Co., being an innocent purchaser for value without notice couldn't be affected adversely due this subsequent legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for American Ice Company v. Eastern Trust and Banking Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Eastern Trust and Banking Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court which should have been corrected on appeal. They contended that these mistakes had led to an unjust outcome, particularly regarding issues related to contract interpretation and enforcement. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence presented during trial had been evaluated by both the original judge and their fellow Supreme Court Justices. In their view, this evidence did not support a judgment against American Ice Company but rather indicated its innocence or at least raised reasonable doubts about its liability.