The U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Mulberry Hill Coal Company in 1914 revolved around a dispute over coal transportation rates between the two companies. The Illinois Central Railroad had increased its rates for transporting coal, which was challenged by the Mulberry Hill Coal Company as being unreasonable and discriminatory under the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The railroad company argued that it had to increase its prices due to higher operating costs and decreased demand for coal transport services, while the coal company claimed that these increases were unjustified and damaging to their business operations. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Mulberry Hill Coal Co., finding that Illinois Central Railroad's rate hikes were indeed unreasonable and violated federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Mulberry Hill Coal Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a coal company to sue a railroad company for damages due to an alleged breach of contract was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there had been no violation of any contractual agreement between both parties and thus, no grounds existed for such litigation. They contended that the plaintiff (Mulberry Hill Coal Company) failed to provide sufficient evidence proving their claim against the defendant (Illinois Central Railroad). Furthermore, they maintained that even if there were some form of agreement in place as claimed by Mulberry Hill Coal Co., this did not automatically translate into liability on part of Illinois Central Railroad Co., especially considering other factors at play like market conditions or operational challenges which could have influenced performance outcomes. Therefore, according to them, holding Illinois Central liable under these circumstances would be unjust and contrary to established principles governing contractual relationships and obligations.