In the case of Commissioners of Wicomico County v. Bancroft (1906), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bancroft, upholding a lower court's decision that he was entitled to compensation for land taken by Wicomico County, Maryland for public use without just compensation as required by law. The county had seized part of Bancroft’s property to build a road and argued that they were not obligated to compensate him because his remaining property increased in value due to this new road construction - an argument known as "set-off" or "betterment." However, the Supreme Court held that even if some parts of his property appreciated in value due to public improvements, it did not negate his right under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause which states private property cannot be taken for public use without fair payment.

In the dissenting opinion for Commissioners of Wicomico County v. Bancroft, the justice disagreed with the majority's decision that Maryland law did not permit counties to issue bonds in aid of a railroad company without explicit legislative authorization. The dissent argued that such an interpretation was too narrow and failed to consider broader principles of municipal authority and public welfare. They contended that local governments should have inherent powers to undertake projects like railroads which are crucial for economic development unless expressly prohibited by state law or constitution. This view emphasizes local autonomy and pragmatism over strict statutory construction, suggesting municipalities should be trusted with more discretion in managing their affairs as long as they do not violate any specific legal prohibitions.