In the 1917 case of Ex Parte Southwestern Surety Insurance Company, the petitioner was an insurance company that had issued a bond for a contractor working on federal construction projects. The contractor defaulted and failed to pay its subcontractors, leading them to file claims against the surety bond. The insurance company argued it should not be liable because it believed that under federal law, only those who directly contracted with the defaulting party could make such claims. However, this argument was rejected by lower courts which held that both direct contractors and subcontractors could claim against the bond. The Supreme Court denied certiorari (refused to review) in this case without providing any written opinion or explanation for their decision. This effectively upheld lower court rulings allowing both direct contractors and subcontractors to claim against bonds provided by sureties in cases of contractual default on federally funded construction projects.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Southwestern Surety Insurance Company, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case. The argument was based on the premise that there were no constitutional questions or federal issues involved in this particular dispute. It was a matter of state law and therefore should be resolved by state courts. Furthermore, it was contended that granting writs of habeas corpus to corporations is an unprecedented move which could potentially lead to misuse and abuse of such legal remedies designed primarily for protection of individual rights against unlawful detention. This view held that extending these protections to corporate entities would distort their original intent and purpose.