In the 1890 case of Central Transportation Company v. Pullman's Palace Car Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving two railroad car companies. The conflict arose when Central Transportation Co., which had leased its business to Pullman's Palace Car Co., sought to terminate the lease before its agreed expiration date and reclaim their property. However, Pullman’s argued that they were entitled to retain control until the end of the lease term as per their agreement. The court held in favor of Pullman's Palace Car Co., ruling that a contract cannot be unilaterally rescinded by one party if it is not fraudulent or illegal and does not violate public policy. Therefore, Central Transportation could not prematurely end their leasing agreement with Pullman’s without mutual consent or unless there was an explicit provision allowing for such termination within their contract. This decision reinforced principles regarding contractual obligations and rights under common law, emphasizing that contracts must be honored as written unless certain exceptional conditions are met.

The dissenting opinion in the Central Transportation Company v. Pullman's Palace Car Company case argued that the contract between both parties was not a sale but rather a lease, and therefore did not violate any anti-monopoly laws. The dissenters believed that Pullman had simply leased its patents to Central Transportation, retaining ownership of them throughout the duration of their agreement. They also disagreed with the majority's view on public policy, arguing that it should be up to Congress - not courts - to decide whether such contracts are against public interest or detrimental to competition. Furthermore, they contended that if every contract involving patent rights were scrutinized for potential monopolistic tendencies, it would discourage innovation and hinder economic growth.