The U.S. Supreme Court case Horne v. George H. Hammond Company in 1894 revolved around a dispute over the shipment of cattle from Arizona to California, which was delayed due to negligence on part of the railway company and resulted in financial loss for the shipper, Horne. The defendant, George H. Hammond Company (the receiver), refused to pay for damages as they claimed that their contract with Horne absolved them from liability caused by third parties such as railroads or steamships - an argument rejected by lower courts who held them liable instead. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was ruled that while carriers are generally responsible for any damage occurring during transit unless exempted through special agreement; this responsibility does not extend indefinitely but only until reasonable notice is given about arrival and readiness for delivery at destination point after which storage charges may apply if goods aren't picked up promptly. In this case since there were no explicit terms regarding duration of liability within their contract nor evidence showing unreasonable delay on part of Hammond Co., it was concluded that they weren't liable beyond giving notice about arrival and readiness for delivery thereby reversing previous judgments against them.

In the dissenting opinion for HORNE v. GEORGE H. HAMMOND COMPANY, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing creditors to seize debtor's property without prior notice or hearing violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling undermined fundamental principles of fairness and justice by permitting an individual’s property to be taken away without giving them an opportunity to contest such action in court first. They contended that even though expedience might require swift action in some cases, constitutional protections should not be sacrificed for convenience or efficiency sake alone.