The U.S. Supreme Court case Morgan's Louisiana and Texas Railroad and Steamship Company v. Texas Central Railway Company; Farmers' Loan and Trust Company; And Metropolitan Trust Company, 1890 revolved around a dispute over railroad property rights in the state of Texas. The plaintiff, Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Co., claimed that it had been unlawfully excluded from using certain railway tracks owned by the defendant, the Texas Central Railway Co., despite having previously acquired usage rights through an agreement with another company (the Houston & Great Northern Railroad). The defendants argued that this previous agreement was not valid as they were not party to it. However, the court ruled in favor of Morgan’s Louisiana & Texas Railroad on grounds that its right to use these tracks could be traced back to an earlier charter granted by the State of Texas which allowed for such shared usage agreements between rail companies.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Morgan's Louisiana and Texas Railroad and Steamship Company v. Texas Central Railway Company; Farmers' Loan and Trust Company; And Metropolitan Trust Company, 1890, argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of the contract between the parties involved. The dissent believed that there was no ambiguity or uncertainty present within this contract to justify a court intervention for its interpretation. They held that it is not appropriate for courts to interpret contracts based on what they believe would be fair or equitable but should instead strictly adhere to interpreting them as written by parties involved. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given by majority towards extrinsic evidence when determining intent behind ambiguous terms within contracts - arguing such evidence should only serve as secondary consideration after clear language used in contracts themselves.