In the case of Fullerton-Krueger Lumber Company v. Northern Pacific Railway Company et al., 1924, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railway company could be held liable for damages to goods during transit due to negligence in maintaining its equipment. The plaintiff, Fullerton-Krueger Lumber Co., claimed that their lumber shipment had been damaged by fire while being transported on one of Northern Pacific's trains and argued that this damage was caused by sparks from a defective locomotive owned and operated by the defendant. However, Northern Pacific countered that they were not responsible as they had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such an incident. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that although carriers are generally liable for any loss or damage occurring during transportation under common law principles, there is an exception when it comes to "acts of God" or public enemies - circumstances beyond human control which cannot be foreseen or prevented even with utmost care and diligence. In this case, despite evidence showing some defects in the locomotive's condition prior to departure (which might have contributed towards sparking), no proof existed demonstrating these defects directly caused the fire leading to lumber’s destruction; hence liability couldn't be established against Northern Pacific.

In the dissenting opinion for Fullerton-Krueger Lumber Company v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed Northern Pacific Railway to charge higher rates for transporting lumber from certain locations. He argued that this was an unjust practice and violated the Interstate Commerce Act, which prohibits unreasonable discrimination in freight charges by railroads. According to him, there was no substantial evidence or justification provided by the railway company for charging different rates based on location alone. The justice believed that such practices could lead to monopolistic control over industries and harm competition among businesses located at different places along a railroad line. Therefore, he opined that it is essential for courts not only to prevent unlawful preferences but also ensure fair competition between shippers situated differently yet competing in common markets.