In the 1916 case of Hendersonville Light & Power Company et al. v. Blue Ridge Interurban Railway Company, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Blue Ridge Interurban Railway Company. The dispute arose when Hendersonville Light & Power claimed that it had exclusive rights to supply electricity within a certain area under its franchise agreement with the city, and sought an injunction against Blue Ridge for supplying power within this territory without permission or compensation. However, Blue Ridge argued that they were not infringing on any rights as their operations were authorized by a state statute which allowed them to generate and distribute electricity for their railway system's operation and other purposes along its line. The court held that while franchises can grant exclusivity over public utilities like water or gas where resources are limited, such monopolistic privileges cannot be extended to electric power since it is unlimited in nature and can be produced by anyone having necessary means.

In the dissenting opinion for Hendersonville Light & Power Company et al. v. Blue Ridge Interurban Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the rights and interests of local communities in regulating their own public utilities. The dissenters believed that municipalities should have more control over their resources and services, including power supply and transportation systems like railways. They contended that by allowing a private company to operate without proper municipal oversight or regulation could lead to monopolistic practices, potentially harming consumers through high prices or poor service quality. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential damage to roads caused by railway operations which would ultimately be borne by taxpayers rather than the responsible party - in this case, Blue Ridge Interurban Railway Company.