In the case of Goldsmith et al. v. George G. Prendergast Construction Company, 1919, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a construction company could be held liable for damages caused by their negligence during a building project in New York City. The plaintiffs were owners of neighboring properties who claimed that their buildings had been damaged due to negligent excavation work carried out by the defendant's company on an adjacent lot. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them damages; however, this decision was reversed upon appeal at state level as it was determined that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the construction company. The case then went before the U.S Supreme Court where it upheld this reversal stating that under New York law, liability could only be established if there was proof beyond reasonable doubt showing direct causation between actions taken by defendants and damage incurred by plaintiffs' property - which wasn't present here according to majority opinion led by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., thus ruling in favor of George G Prendergast Construction Company.

In the dissenting opinion for Goldsmith et al. v. George G. Prendergast Construction Company, Justice Louis Brandeis argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the construction company was incorrect because it failed to take into account key aspects of contract law and principles of equity. He contended that by ignoring these factors, the Court had effectively allowed an unjust enrichment at the expense of innocent third parties who had performed work under a mistaken belief they would be paid from funds held by a trustee under a building loan agreement. The justice believed this interpretation undermined fundamental fairness and created an undesirable precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.