The case of Ferry v. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Company et al., in 1921 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and rights. The plaintiff, Ferry, claimed that the defendants had unlawfully taken possession of his property located along the Columbia River in Washington state for railway purposes without providing just compensation as required by law. He sought to recover damages for this alleged unlawful seizure and use of his property. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him on grounds that he failed to prove legal title or right to possession at the time when it was allegedly seized by defendants. Furthermore, it was found that there were no federal questions involved which could give jurisdiction to a court of equity; hence any relief should be sought from local courts under state laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ferry v. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Company et al., argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of law. The dissent emphasized that a railroad company should not be held liable for damages caused by sparks from its locomotives if it has taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such occurrences. They contended that there is an inherent risk associated with operating trains and this risk cannot be completely eliminated despite taking all possible precautions. Therefore, holding companies strictly liable would place an unfair burden on them and could potentially disrupt commerce due to excessive litigation costs. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and prior cases where similar circumstances were treated differently by the court.