In the case of Dickson et al. v. Uhlmann Grain Co., 1932, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for future delivery of grain could be considered as gambling and therefore illegal under Kansas law if neither party intended to actually deliver or receive the goods. The court ruled in favor of Uhlmann Grain Co., stating that such contracts were not necessarily gambling but rather legitimate business transactions known as "hedging". Hedging allows businesses to protect themselves against price fluctuations in commodities like grain by buying or selling futures contracts. The court held that these types of agreements are essential for maintaining stability in volatile markets and thus should not be classified as illegal gambling activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Dickson et al. v. Uhlmann Grain Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kansas statute, which allowed creditors to recover grain commissions from insolvent debtors, was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and violated principles of equity. He contended that this ruling would unfairly penalize innocent third parties who had no knowledge or control over an insolvent debtor's actions. Furthermore, he asserted that such a law could potentially disrupt interstate commerce by allowing states to impose their own unique regulations on businesses operating across state lines. In his view, it was not within a state’s power to pass laws affecting transactions outside its jurisdiction in such manner as they saw fit without regard for other states’ rights or federal authority.