The Drumm-Flato Commission Company v. Edmisson case in 1907 revolved around a dispute over the sale of cattle. The plaintiff, Drumm-Flato Commission Company, was a livestock commission merchant who sold cattle on behalf of the defendant, Edmisson. A disagreement arose when some of these sales were made to insolvent buyers and others were not paid for at all due to buyer bankruptcy or absconding. The company sued Edmisson for reimbursement but he argued that they had failed in their duty as agents by selling his property to unreliable parties without ensuring payment security. The Supreme Court ruled against Drumm-Flato stating that while an agent is expected to exercise reasonable care and skill in conducting business transactions on behalf of its principal (Edmisson), it does not guarantee the solvency or reliability of third-party buyers unless explicitly agreed upon beforehand. Therefore, any losses incurred from such sales are considered risks associated with doing business which should be borne by the principal rather than transferred onto the agent.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Drumm-Flato Commission Company v. Edmisson, it was argued that there should be a clear distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce. The justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes as an act of interstate commerce, arguing that not all activities related to or affecting such trade can be classified under this category. He contended that if every activity remotely connected to interstate business were considered part thereof, then virtually everything could fall within federal jurisdiction - which he believed was not in line with constitutional intent. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential overreach by federal authorities into areas traditionally governed by state law due to broad interpretations of what falls under their purview through the Commerce Clause.