In the 1918 case of King v. Putnam Investment Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a stockholder in a corporation could sue another shareholder for damages resulting from mismanagement and fraud that led to financial loss. The plaintiff, Mr. King, alleged that he had suffered losses due to fraudulent actions by directors of the company who were also shareholders. However, the court ruled against him stating that as per Massachusetts law (where this case originated), such an action could not be maintained unless it was brought on behalf of all other shareholders who had similarly suffered losses due to these fraudulent activities - essentially requiring it to be a class-action lawsuit rather than an individual one. This ruling clarified legal principles regarding shareholder rights and responsibilities in cases involving corporate fraud or mismanagement.

In the dissenting opinion for King v. Putnam Investment Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Putnam Investment Company contradicted established principles of equity and fairness. The dissenting justices believed that King should have been allowed to recover his investment from Putnam because he had made it under false pretenses, induced by fraudulent misrepresentations on part of the company. They contended that allowing such deceptive practices would undermine public confidence in business transactions and set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving fraud or deceit. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant laws and precedents, arguing instead that these supported King’s claim against Putnam. In their view, justice required not only punishing wrongdoers but also compensating victims for their losses; hence they felt compelled to voice their disagreement with what they saw as an unjust verdict.