In the 1914 case of Lehman, Stern & Company, Limited v. S. Gumbel & Company, Limited, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over cotton contracts between two companies. The plaintiff company (Lehman) had sold cotton to the defendant company (Gumbel), but due to an outbreak of war in Europe and subsequent closure of ports for shipment, delivery was delayed beyond contract terms. When prices fell dramatically after reopening of ports and resumption of trade activities, Gumbel refused to accept delivery at previously agreed price arguing that delay constituted breach by Lehman which absolved them from obligation to pay original price. The court ruled in favor of Lehman stating that delays caused by unforeseeable events such as wars do not constitute a breach if reasonable efforts are made for performance once conditions improve; hence Gumbel was still obligated under contract terms despite delay in delivery.

In the dissenting opinion for Lehman, Stern & Company, Limited v. S. Gumbel & Company, Limited (1914), Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law prohibiting foreign corporations from doing business in the state without obtaining a license was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and violated principles of interstate commerce. He contended that while states have power over domestic affairs within their borders, they cannot obstruct or discriminate against interstate commerce by imposing unreasonable restrictions on out-of-state businesses. The justice believed that such protectionist measures were not only unconstitutional but also detrimental to economic growth and competition as they effectively shielded local firms from outside competitors. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "doing business," arguing it was too broad and could potentially encompass any commercial activity whatsoever.