In the 1893 U.S. Supreme Court case Carne v. Russ, the court was tasked with determining whether a certain piece of property in San Francisco belonged to James G. Fair or his children by inheritance, following his death in December 1894. The dispute arose due to an alleged agreement between Mr. Fair and Mrs. Nettie R Craven (formerly known as Nettie R Hunt), who claimed that she had been promised half of Mr.Fair's estate upon his death for her services rendered during their relationship which lasted over twenty years until he died. The lower courts ruled against Mrs.Craven on grounds that there was no written evidence supporting her claim and also because it found out that she had committed perjury while giving testimony about some aspects related to this case. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court upheld these rulings stating that even if such an oral contract existed between them, it would still be unenforceable under California law which required any agreements concerning real estate must be made in writing.

In the dissenting opinion for Carne v. Russ, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting wild game and selling it in other states infringed upon interstate commerce rights. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling gave individual states too much power over trade regulations, which could potentially disrupt national economic harmony by allowing each state to set their own rules about what goods can be sold across borders. They contended that only Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, not individual states. Therefore, they disagreed with upholding a law that they saw as an unconstitutional restriction on free trade between states.