In the 1898 case of Capital Traction Company v. Hof, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Capital Traction Company. The dispute arose when a horse-drawn carriage driven by Mr. Hof collided with one of Capital Traction's streetcars in Washington D.C., resulting in injuries to Mr. Hof and damage to his vehicle. He sued for damages, alleging negligence on part of the company's driver who was operating at an excessive speed without due caution and failed to stop or slow down upon seeing him approach from an intersecting street. The court held that there was no evidence proving negligence on behalf of the defendant (Capital Traction). It concluded that both drivers had equal rights to be on the road and it was their mutual duty to avoid any collision; thus, neither could assume that he had exclusive control over crossing streets where traffic is common unless they were signaled otherwise by law or custom. Therefore, since there wasn't enough proof showing failure from either party regarding this obligation nor any statutory regulations governing such situations at intersections within city limits during those times, it would be unjustified for courts below them not considering these factors while deciding liability based solely upon conjecture rather than concrete facts presented before them which led towards reversing previous judgments against Capital Traction Company.

In the dissenting opinion for Capital Traction Company v. Hof, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there was a federal question involved in this dispute between citizens of different states. He believed that if such a question existed, then jurisdiction would be proper regardless of how much money was at stake. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "a controversy" under Article III Section 2 of Constitution and felt they were too restrictive in their definition. In his view, any legal disagreement should qualify as long as it involves an actual injury or threat thereof and is capable of resolution through judicial process.