In the 1928 case of Central New England Railway Company v. Boston & Albany Railroad Company, Assignor, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights between two railroad companies. The Boston & Albany Railroad had leased some land to Central New England Railway for use as a railway line but later sold it to another party without informing or seeking consent from Central New England Railway. When this came to light, Central New England sued for breach of contract and trespassing on their leasehold interest in the property. The court ruled in favor of Boston & Albany Railroad stating that while they did not inform or seek consent from Central New England before selling the land, there was no explicit requirement in their lease agreement requiring them to do so. Furthermore, since both parties were sophisticated businesses who could have included such terms if they wished during negotiation but didn't; therefore it cannot be assumed now after-the-fact. This ruling established an important precedent regarding commercial leases and contractual obligations: unless explicitly stated otherwise within a contract's language itself - implied duties or expectations are not enforceable by law.

In the dissenting opinion for Central New England Railway Company v. Boston & Albany Railroad Company, 1928, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Boston & Albany Railroad Co. was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and property rights. The dissenting justices believed that Central New England Railway Co., as a lessee, had certain rights over the leased property which should be recognized and protected by law. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of lease agreements between railway companies and their implications on property ownership disputes. Furthermore, they contended that this case could set an unfavorable precedent for future cases involving similar issues if not properly addressed.