The Great Southern Fireproof Hotel Company v. Jones case in 1899 revolved around a dispute over property rights and the interpretation of lease agreements. The plaintiff, Great Southern Fireproof Hotel Company, leased a hotel building from Jones for ten years with an option to purchase it within that period. However, when the company decided to exercise its purchasing right after six years into the lease term, Jones refused on grounds that they had not complied with all terms of their agreement - specifically maintaining fire insurance on the property as stipulated in their contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Great Southern Fireproof Hotel Company stating that while they did breach one condition (maintaining fire insurance), this was not sufficient ground for denying them their purchasing rights since it wasn't directly related to or affecting said right under the lease agreement's terms.

In the dissenting opinion for Great Southern Fireproof Hotel Company v. Jones, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a hotel liable for loss of guest property due to theft by an employee was incorrect. The dissent contended that hotels should not be held as insurers of guests' property against all risks, including those arising from criminal acts committed by employees. They believed this would place an undue burden on hotel owners and potentially lead to unjust outcomes in future cases. Instead, they suggested that liability should only arise when there is negligence or fault on part of the hotel management in hiring or supervising its employees which leads directly to such losses.