In the Moline Plow Company v. Webb case of 1891, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Moline Plow Company. The dispute arose when Webb, a Texas resident, purchased goods from Moline Plow Co., an Illinois-based company and failed to pay for them. When the company sued him in federal court in Texas for payment, he argued that as per state law his property was exempt from seizure to satisfy such debts because it was his homestead (primary residence). However, this exemption did not apply under Illinois law where the contract had been made. The Supreme Court held that while states have authority over their own laws regarding property rights within their borders; they cannot impose those laws on contracts made outside their jurisdiction if those laws conflict with or impair obligations created by such contracts. Therefore, since Webb's debt originated from a contract formed under Illinois law which didn't recognize homestead exemptions like Texas did - he could not use this defense against paying off his debt.

The dissenting opinion in the Moline Plow Company v. Webb case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. The justice disagreed with the interpretation of a contract between two parties, arguing it should be read as an agreement to sell all rights to a patent rather than just granting exclusive use within certain territories. He believed this reading would better align with both parties' intentions at the time of signing, considering their subsequent actions and correspondence. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were ambiguities in the contract language, they should have been resolved in favor of Webb due to his significant investment based on his understanding of acquiring full ownership rights over the patent. This perspective also emphasized fairness by highlighting how Moline Plow Company had benefited from Webb’s efforts without bearing any risk or cost themselves.