The U.S. Supreme Court case Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. McCaull-Dinsmore Company in 1919 revolved around a dispute over the transportation of goods and the resulting damages incurred during transit. The McCaull-Dinsmore Company had contracted with the railway company to transport its shipment of eggs from Missouri to Washington state but found upon arrival that some were damaged due to freezing temperatures en route, which they claimed was negligence on part of the railway company for not providing adequate protection against cold weather conditions despite being informed about it beforehand. However, as per their contract's terms and conditions, any claims regarding damage or loss needed to be filed within 36 hours after delivery - a period within which McCaull-Dinsmore failed to do so because they only discovered the extent of damage later when customers started returning spoiled eggs. In this context, two main issues came before court: whether such contractual stipulations limiting time for filing claims are enforceable; and if yes then does discovery rule (which allows lawsuits from date problem is discovered rather than occurred) apply here? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of railway company stating that these clauses are indeed valid under Interstate Commerce Act provisions unless proven unreasonable; also discovery rule doesn't apply since it wasn't concealed by carrier intentionally.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. McCaull-Dinsmore Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision that a railroad company could be held liable for damages to goods caused by an unexpected delay in transit due to unforeseen circumstances such as floods or strikes. He argued that it was unreasonable and unfair to hold carriers responsible for events beyond their control and which they could not have predicted or prevented. Furthermore, he contended that this ruling would place an undue burden on transportation companies who would then need to factor in potential liability costs into their pricing structures, leading ultimately to higher prices for consumers. The justice believed that instead of imposing strict liability on carriers regardless of fault, each case should be evaluated individually based on its specific facts and circumstances.