The U.S. Supreme Court case Moore-Mansfield Construction Co. v. Electrical Installation Company in 1913 revolved around a dispute between the two companies over payment for electrical work done on a building project in Ohio that was financed by bonds issued under New York law. The construction company, Moore-Mansfield, argued that they were not obligated to pay the installation company because of an Ohio statute prohibiting corporations from making contracts outside their state of incorporation unless authorized by their charter or articles of association. However, the court ruled against this argument stating that such statutes do not apply when dealing with interstate commerce and transactions involving negotiable instruments like bonds which are governed by federal law rather than state laws where businesses are incorporated or operate. Therefore, it was held that Moore-Mansfield had no legal basis to refuse payment to Electrical Installation Company for services rendered as per contract terms regardless of where either corporation is based or operates from since these aspects have no bearing on contractual obligations especially those involving interstate commerce and federally regulated financial instruments.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore-Mansfield Construction Co. v. Electrical Installation Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Electrical Installation Company was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of contract law and principles surrounding unjust enrichment. The dissenting justices believed that Moore-Mansfield Construction Co., as a general contractor, should not be held liable for payment to subcontractors hired by another company with which they had no direct contractual relationship or agreement. They contended that this liability should fall on the party who directly contracted with these subcontractors - in this case, Electrical Installation Company - rather than being passed onto other parties indirectly involved in the project. This perspective emphasized strict adherence to established legal principles regarding contracts and obligations therein, arguing against what they saw as an unfair extension of liability beyond those explicitly agreed upon within existing contracts.