In the case of Muse v. Arlington Hotel Company (1897), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and contract law. The plaintiff, Muse, had entered into an agreement to lease a hotel from the defendant, Arlington Hotel Company. However, before he could take possession of it, another party claimed they had already leased it from the same company for that period. Despite this claim being false as per court findings later on, Muse was unable to gain access to or operate his business in the hotel due to these conflicting claims which led him to sue for damages caused by breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Muse stating that even though there were no physical barriers preventing him from occupying and operating his business at the hotel during this time frame; however because he was legally barred due to pending litigation regarding rightful occupancy - essentially making it impossible for him without risking legal consequences - constituted sufficient grounds for claiming damages under breach of contract laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Muse v. Arlington Hotel Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to adequately consider the rights of property owners. The dissent emphasized that a hotel, while open to the public, is still private property and its owner should have some discretion over who they admit as guests. They contended that if a person behaves improperly or disrupts business operations, it would be unreasonable for an innkeeper not to have any right to refuse service or eject them from their premises. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of common law principles regarding innkeepers' duties towards potential customers; arguing instead that these obligations were never intended to completely override an owner's control over their own property.