In the 1913 case of Hawley v. City of Malden, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its right to enforce an ordinance that required street railway companies to maintain and repair public roads used by their tracks. The plaintiff, a streetcar company owner named Hawley, argued that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with his contract rights under a state charter which did not include such obligations. However, the court found no violation of contractual or property rights as claimed by Mr. Hawley since he had voluntarily accepted these terms when he chose to operate within city limits after enactment of said ordinance. Furthermore, they held that municipalities have inherent power over local affairs including regulation and control over streets for public safety and welfare purposes; hence could impose reasonable conditions on entities using them.

In the dissenting opinion for Hawley v. City of Malden, it was argued that the city's decision to change a public street into a private way violated property rights. The justice contended that such an action constituted an unlawful taking without compensation, which is prohibited by both state and federal constitutions. He further asserted that while cities have broad powers to regulate streets for public safety or welfare purposes, they do not have unlimited authority to alter their character in ways detrimental to abutting landowners' interests. In this case, he believed the city had overstepped its bounds by effectively depriving Mr. Hawley of his right to use the street as a thoroughfare and diminishing his property value without providing just compensation.