The case of Chalker, Administrator De Bonis Non of Estate of Wright, et al. v. Birmingham & Northwestern Railway Company et al., 1918 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the right to construct a railway line through it. The plaintiffs were administrators for the estate of J.J. Wright who claimed that they owned certain lands in Alabama which had been sold to the defendant railroad company without their consent or knowledge by another party claiming ownership rights on these lands. They sought an injunction against the defendants from constructing any railways on this disputed property until rightful ownership could be determined. However, after examining all evidence presented before them including deeds and other documents related to land transactions dating back several decades, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants stating that they held valid title to these lands as per state laws governing such matters at that time period when those transactions took place. Furthermore, it was also noted by court during its judgment that even if there had been any irregularities or errors made during past conveyances involving this property; under established legal principles known as 'doctrine of laches' and 'statute limitations', plaintiffs have lost their rights now due to long delay in asserting them.

In the dissenting opinion for Chalker v. Birmingham & Northwestern Railway Company, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of Alabama state law and precedent regarding negligence claims against railway companies. The dissenters believed that there was sufficient evidence to suggest potential negligence on behalf of the railroad company which could have contributed to Wright's death, such as failure to provide a safe workplace or adequately train employees. They also disagreed with the majority's assertion that Wright assumed all risks associated with his job when he accepted employment, arguing instead that employers still hold responsibility for maintaining safety standards regardless of any inherent dangers in a particular line of work. Furthermore, they contended that this case should not be dismissed outright but rather remanded back to lower courts for further proceedings where more detailed factual findings could be made about whether or not negligence occurred.