In the case of Arlington Hotel Company v. Fant et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arlington Hotel Company, reversing a decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The dispute arose when Fant and others claimed that they had been fraudulently induced into purchasing stock from Arlington Hotel Company due to misrepresentations about its value and profitability. They sought rescission of their purchase contracts and restitution for their losses. However, the court found no evidence supporting these allegations of fraudulent inducement or misrepresentation on part of Arlington Hotel Co., thus ruling against Fant's claims. The court also clarified an important point regarding jurisdiction over corporations operating across state lines: A corporation is not necessarily "doing business" in a state simply because it owns property there or has agents who solicit orders for goods within that state; rather, it must be shown that such activities are so substantial as to constitute doing business in a practical sense.

In the dissenting opinion for Arlington Hotel Company v. Fant et al., Justice Stone disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a state law that allowed hotels to refuse service based on race, arguing it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that this ruling was inconsistent with previous decisions where similar laws were struck down as unconstitutional. Justice Stone believed that such discriminatory practices by businesses serving public interests should not be protected under state legislation and instead should be considered an infringement of civil rights guaranteed by federal law. He argued further that if states could legally sanction racial discrimination in public accommodations, they could also do so in other areas like education or employment, leading to widespread segregation and inequality contrary to constitutional principles.