In the case of L. Singer & Sons et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1940, the Supreme Court was asked to decide on a dispute between a shipper and a railroad company over damage to shipped goods. The shippers, L.Singer & Sons, had sent several shipments of canned salmon via Union Pacific Railroad Company from Washington State to New York City in refrigerated cars that were supposed to be kept at freezing temperatures throughout transit as per their agreement with the railway company. However, upon arrival in New York City it was discovered that some cans had burst due to spoilage caused by thawing during transportation which led them filing suit against Union Pacific for damages incurred due to negligence in maintaining agreed-upon temperature conditions. The court ruled in favor of the railroad company stating that they could not be held liable because there wasn't any evidence proving negligence or failure on their part regarding maintenance of temperature inside refrigerated cars during transit; also noting that bursting cans might have been caused by other factors such as improper canning process before shipment.

The dissenting opinion in the case of L. Singer & Sons et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1940, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against L. Singer & Sons was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases involving interstate commerce laws and regulations. The dissenting justices believed that the railroad company had violated its duty as a common carrier by refusing to transport goods for L.Singer & Sons due to an ongoing labor dispute between them and another party not involved in this particular transaction, which they saw as irrelevant to their obligation under federal law to provide transportation services upon reasonable request without discrimination or undue preference towards any specific parties or groups of customers based on factors unrelated directly related business considerations such as cost, capacity availability etc.. They also disagreed with majority's interpretation application Interstate Commerce Act provisions regarding unreasonable practices discriminatory treatment shippers carriers alike arguing instead these should be interpreted broadly protect rights all participants market regardless their size power relative others rather than narrowly favor large powerful entities like railroads at expense smaller less influential ones like individual shippers.