In the case of Kansas City Structural Steel Company v. Arkansas, for the Use and Benefit of Ashley County (1925), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arkansas. The dispute arose when Kansas City Structural Steel Company failed to complete a contract with Ashley County, resulting in financial loss for the county. The company argued that it was not liable because its contract was with an individual contractor rather than directly with Ashley County or state authorities. However, under Arkansas law at that time, counties could sue on behalf of their residents if they suffered damages due to breach of public contracts such as this one. Therefore, despite not being a direct party to the original agreement, Ashley County had legal standing to bring suit against Kansas City Structural Steel Company for failing to fulfill its contractual obligations.

In the dissenting opinion for Kansas City Structural Steel Company v. Arkansas, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding interstate commerce and taxation. He believed that by allowing Arkansas to tax a Missouri-based company on goods stored in transit within its borders, it violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which prohibits states from interfering with interstate trade. Furthermore, he pointed out that this ruling could potentially lead to double taxation as other states may also impose taxes on these same goods while they are in transit through their jurisdictions. This would create an undue burden on companies involved in interstate commerce and disrupt economic activity across state lines.