In the Harrison v. Fortlage case of 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and water access. The plaintiff, Harrison, owned land adjacent to Lake Erie in Ohio and had granted defendant Fortlage an easement (right-of-way) across his property for ingress and egress to the lake. However, when Harrison built a fence blocking this access route without providing an alternative one as required by law, Fortlage sued him for obstructing his right-of-way. The court held that although an owner has absolute control over their property under common law principles of private ownership; they cannot exercise this power in such a way as to infringe upon another's legally established rights or privileges without offering reasonable compensation or alternatives. Therefore, it was determined that Harrison violated these principles by unilaterally altering the terms of their agreement with no regard for Fortlage’s legal entitlements. Consequently, he was ordered to remove the obstruction or provide another suitable path allowing free passage between Fortlage's residence and Lake Erie.

In the dissenting opinion for Harrison v. Fortlage, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in its waters conflicted with the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissenting justices believed this clause guaranteed citizens of each state all privileges and immunities granted to citizens in other states, including access to natural resources like fish. They contended that while states could regulate how their resources were used, they couldn't completely bar out-of-state residents from accessing them altogether. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation that commercial activities weren't protected under this clause; instead arguing that commerce was one such privilege or immunity covered by it.