The U.S. Supreme Court case Chicago, St. Louis and New Orleans Railroad Company v. Pullman Southern Car Company in 1890 revolved around a dispute over the payment of lease rentals for railway cars between two railroad companies. The Pullman Southern Car Company had leased its cars to the Chicago, St. Louis and New Orleans Railroad Company under an agreement that required monthly payments regardless of whether or not the lessee used them all or any part thereof during such month; however, due to financial difficulties, the latter company failed to make these payments as agreed upon in their contract. Pullman sued for breach of contract and won at both lower court levels before reaching the Supreme Court which affirmed those decisions by ruling in favor of Pullman once again on appeal from Chicago et al., stating that they were bound by their contractual obligations irrespective of circumstances beyond their control affecting ability to pay rent owed per terms set forth within said lease agreement with plaintiff-appellee herein.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chicago, St. Louis and New Orleans Railroad Company v. Pullman Southern Car Company, it was argued that a contract between two parties should not be interfered with by a third party unless there is clear evidence of fraud or illegality. The justices believed that the majority's decision to void an agreement between Pullman and another railroad company overstepped their authority as they were essentially rewriting contracts under the guise of interpretation. They further contended that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent where courts can arbitrarily interfere in private agreements based on subjective interpretations rather than objective legal principles.