In the case of Emmons Coal Mining Company et al. v. Norfolk & Western Railway Company, 1926, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railway company could be held liable for damages to coal shipments that were not properly protected by their shipper from weather-related damage during transit. The Emmons Coal Mining Company had sued the Norfolk & Western Railway Company after several of its coal shipments arrived at their destination in a deteriorated condition due to exposure to rain and snow while in transit on open rail cars provided by the railway company. However, it was found that it was common practice for shippers like Emmons to cover such loads themselves if they wished them protected from weather conditions and this responsibility did not fall onto railways under existing laws or regulations. Therefore, despite acknowledging that some deterioration occurred as alleged by Emmons, the court ruled in favor of Norfolk & Western Railway Co., stating that they were not responsible for protecting cargo against natural elements unless specifically contracted otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Emmons Coal Mining Company et al. v. Norfolk & Western Railway Company, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Emmons was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and principles of equity. The justice contended that while there may have been an agreement between Emmons and Norfolk & Western regarding coal transportation rates, this did not necessarily constitute a legally binding contract as defined by common law standards. Furthermore, he suggested that even if such a contract existed, its enforcement should be subject to equitable considerations given potential changes in circumstances since its formation - including fluctuations in market conditions or costs associated with providing railway services which could render original terms unfair or unfeasible over time.