The Manhattan Company v. Blake case in 1892 revolved around a dispute over the rights to use water from the Collect Pond in New York City for commercial purposes. The plaintiff, Manhattan Company, claimed that it had exclusive rights based on its charter granted by the state legislature in 1799. However, defendant John L. Blake argued that he also had a right to use this water source as his property was adjacent to it and there were no explicit restrictions against such usage mentioned in his deed of purchase. The Supreme Court ruled against the Manhattan Company stating that their charter did not grant them an absolute monopoly over all waters within city limits but only allowed them access to public streams or bodies of water where they could lay pipes without causing harm or inconvenience to others. It further clarified that private owners like Mr.Blake still retained their common-law rights unless explicitly taken away by legislative action which was not evident here. This decision underscored two important principles: firstly, corporate charters should be interpreted strictly and any privileges not clearly expressed are deemed as withheld; secondly, individual property rights cannot be infringed upon without clear legal authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Manhattan Company v. Blake, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law requiring banks to pay interest on deposits was an overreach of state power. He contended that such laws interfered with interstate commerce and thus violated federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, he believed this ruling could lead to states imposing other burdensome regulations on national banks which would disrupt their operations and undermine their competitiveness in the financial market. In his view, it was not within a state’s authority to dictate how these federally chartered institutions should conduct business beyond ensuring they operate fairly and honestly within its borders.