In the case of Durham Public Service Company v. City of Durham in 1922, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a franchise agreement between a public utility company and a city. The Durham Public Service Company had been granted rights by the City of Durham to operate street railways and provide electricity for light and power within certain areas. However, when another company was given similar rights without any compensation being paid to the original holder, this led to conflict. The Supreme Court ruled that while cities have broad powers to grant franchises for use of their streets, they cannot arbitrarily or unfairly interfere with existing franchise agreements without providing just compensation. This ruling upheld property rights protections under due process clauses in both state constitutions and Fourteenth Amendment of U.S Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Durham Public Service Company v. City of Durham, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance requiring street railway companies to pave and maintain streets between their tracks and two feet on each side was unjustified. The dissenting justices believed this requirement constituted an undue burden on the company, effectively forcing them into performing municipal duties without compensation or consent. They contended that such obligations should not be imposed arbitrarily but rather negotiated as part of franchise agreements with clear terms agreed upon by both parties. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential implications for other public utilities if municipalities could unilaterally impose such burdensome requirements without due process or fair negotiation.