The U.S. Supreme Court case Interior Construction and Improvement Company v. Gibney in 1895 revolved around a dispute over the payment of bonds issued by the city of Topeka, Kansas to fund public improvements. The plaintiff, Interior Construction and Improvement Company (IC&I), was contracted by the city to carry out these improvements but did not receive full payment due to an alleged irregularity in issuing some bonds. IC&I sued John R. Gibney, who held one such bond that had been declared invalid by lower courts because it exceeded Topeka's statutory debt limit at its issuance time. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled against IC&I stating that even if there were procedural errors or irregularities when issuing certain bonds, those holding them should still be paid as long as they acted in good faith without knowledge of any potential issues during acquisition. This decision upheld previous rulings which emphasized protection for innocent purchasers of municipal securities while also reinforcing municipalities' obligations towards their debts regardless of how they were incurred.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Interior Construction and Improvement Company v. Gibney argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a contract was unenforceable due to it being against public policy, was incorrect. The dissent believed this interpretation of public policy was too broad and could potentially infringe upon individual rights by limiting their ability to enter into contracts freely. They also disagreed with the majority's view on what constituted an "unreasonable" restraint on trade or commerce, arguing that any agreement between parties should be considered reasonable unless it clearly harms competition or is detrimental to society as a whole. Furthermore, they contended that if there were concerns about potential harm from such agreements, these should be addressed through legislation rather than judicial decisions.