In the case of Fourche River Lumber Company v. Bryant Lumber Company, 1912, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for timber rights violated antitrust laws. The Fourche River Lumber Co. had sold its land and timber rights to Bryant Lumber Co., but retained the right to cut and remove certain amounts of lumber each year for ten years. When Fourche failed to meet these quotas, they sued Bryant claiming that their agreement constituted an illegal restraint on trade because it prevented them from selling their uncut timber elsewhere. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation; instead ruling that such contracts were not inherently anti-competitive as long as they did not unduly restrict competition or create monopolies in violation of federal law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fourche River Lumber Company v. Bryant Lumber Company disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed for an injunction against Fourche River, preventing them from using a particular waterway for log transportation. The dissent argued that this was not a proper use of injunctive relief as it did not prevent irreparable harm but instead seemed punitive in nature. They also contended that there were other legal remedies available to Bryant Lumber which they should have pursued before seeking an injunction. Furthermore, they believed that the majority had overstepped their bounds by making determinations about state law issues such as property rights and water usage rights, areas where federal courts typically defer to state courts' expertise and jurisdiction.