In the 1920 case New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. York & Whitney Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over freight charges. The railroad company had charged rates based on an interpretation of its tariff schedule that was later determined to be incorrect by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Despite this determination, the railroad company sued for unpaid freight charges at their interpreted rate. The court ruled in favor of York & Whitney Co., stating that once a tariff is filed with and approved by ICC, it becomes "the law" and binds both parties; therefore any ambiguity should not benefit those who created it - in this case, the railroad company. This ruling reinforced ICC's authority over interstate commerce and established precedent for future cases involving disputes about tariffs.

In the dissenting opinion for New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. York & Whitney Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a railroad company liable for damages caused by sparks from its locomotives was unjustified. The dissenting justices believed that there were insufficient grounds to establish negligence on part of the railroad company and thus, they should not be held responsible for any damage caused by such unavoidable incidents. They contended that railroads are public utilities providing essential services and imposing liability in this manner would place an undue burden on them which could potentially affect their ability to operate effectively. Furthermore, they pointed out that accidents involving sparks from trains are inevitable given current technology and operational requirements; therefore, holding companies accountable under these circumstances is unreasonable as it goes beyond what can be reasonably expected of them in terms of safety precautions.