In the 1923 case, Ex Parte in the Matter of Skinner & Eddy Corporation, Petitioner, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over taxation. The Skinner & Eddy Corporation had built ships during World War I under contracts that included provisions for increased compensation if construction costs rose due to changes in tax law. After taxes were indeed raised by Congress through the Revenue Act of 1917 and later amendments, Skinner & Eddy sought additional payment from the government based on these contractual clauses. The issue before the court was whether or not such an increase constituted "taxes" within their contract's meaning. The Supreme Court ruled against Skinner & Eddy Corp., stating that increases in income taxes did not constitute an increase in 'taxes' as per their contract terms because they were general obligations imposed upon all citizens rather than specific charges related to shipbuilding operations. This decision clarified how broadly courts would interpret contractual language regarding tax liability and set a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte Skinner & Eddy Corporation argued that the majority's decision to deny a writ of mandamus was incorrect. The dissent believed that the lower court had overstepped its bounds by ordering an injunction against Skinner & Eddy, preventing them from building ships under contract with the Emergency Fleet Corporation. They contended that this order interfered with federal authority and violated principles of equity jurisdiction. Furthermore, they felt it was inappropriate for a state court to interfere in matters related to national defense during wartime. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's view that there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting Supreme Court intervention via mandamus.