In the case of Leigh Ellis & Company v. Davis, as Agent, 1922, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for cotton futures could be considered valid if it did not comply with certain regulations under the United States Cotton Futures Act. The plaintiff argued that because their contract didn't conform to these requirements, it should be deemed void and unenforceable. However, the defendant contended that since both parties had entered into this agreement willingly and knowingly without any fraudulent intent or coercion involved on either side; therefore it should still hold up in court despite its non-compliance with some aspects of federal law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Davis (the defendant), stating that contracts which do not adhere strictly to all stipulations outlined by relevant legislation are not automatically invalid unless such laws explicitly state so. In this instance, they found no clear indication within the Cotton Futures Act suggesting contracts failing to meet its standards were null and void by default.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Leigh Ellis & Company v. Davis, as Agent, etc., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on cotton futures contracts was incorrect. The dissent believed this tax interfered with interstate commerce and thus violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution. They contended that these contracts were not merely local transactions but integral parts of an extensive national and international trade system. Therefore, they should be considered as part of interstate commerce and exempt from state taxation under federal law. Furthermore, it was suggested that such taxes could potentially disrupt or even destroy this vital industry by imposing undue financial burdens upon it.