The Marchant v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company case in 1893 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of an agreement between the two parties. The plaintiff, Marchant, had leased land to the defendant, Pennsylvania Railroad Company for railroad purposes with a stipulation that if any minerals were found on said property, they would be shared equally between both parties. When coal was discovered and mined by another company under contract with the railroad company without sharing profits or royalties with Marchant, he sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pennsylvania Railroad Company stating that while there was indeed an agreement about mineral rights sharing; it only applied when such minerals were extracted as part of regular railway construction activities and not during separate mining operations conducted by third-party contractors hired specifically for this purpose. Therefore, since no violation occurred within these specific terms set out in their original lease agreement - no breach took place according to law.

In the dissenting opinion for Marchant v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the railroad company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant factual disputes about whether or not Mr. Marchant had been negligent and if his negligence contributed to his injury, which should have precluded summary judgment in favor of the railroad company. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "reasonable care" on part of an employer towards its employees under existing law at that time, arguing instead for a broader definition which would hold employers more accountable for ensuring worker safety. Furthermore, they contended that by upholding this verdict without allowing these issues to be resolved through trial first, it set a dangerous precedent where courts could prematurely decide cases based solely on their own interpretations rather than letting juries make determinations based on presented evidence.