The Continental Wall Paper Company v. Louis Voight and Sons Company case in 1908 revolved around the issue of price-fixing agreements, which were deemed illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiff, Continental Wall Paper Co., had sold goods to Voight & Sons on credit but later filed a lawsuit when payment was not received. In defense, Voight argued that they should not have to pay because the prices set by Continental were part of an unlawful conspiracy to control market prices - thus violating antitrust laws. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Continental Wall Paper Co., stating that even though their pricing agreement may have been illegal under antitrust law, it did not invalidate their claim for payment from Voight & Sons for goods already delivered and accepted. This decision established precedent regarding contracts involving anti-competitive practices; while such contracts might be unenforceable due to illegality, parties who willingly participate cannot use this as a reason to avoid obligations arising from them.

In the dissenting opinion for Continental Wall Paper Company v. Louis Voight and Sons Company, Justice Holmes argued that the Sherman Act should not be interpreted to prohibit all contracts restraining trade but only those creating a monopoly or destroying competition. He contended that it was unreasonable to interpret the law as making every contract in restraint of trade illegal, regardless of its nature or effect on commerce. According to him, such an interpretation would lead to absurd results and could potentially make many ordinary business transactions unlawful. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that price-fixing agreements were inherently harmful and thus always prohibited by antitrust laws; instead, he believed they should be evaluated based on their actual impact on competition.