In the case of New York Central Railroad Company et al. v. New York and Pennsylvania Company, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Central Railroad Company (NYCRR). The dispute arose when NYCRR refused to allow a smaller railroad company, the NY&P Co., access to its tracks for transit purposes. The Interstate Commerce Commission ordered NYCRR to grant this access but they appealed against it. The Supreme Court held that while railroads are required by law to provide reasonable and nondiscriminatory services, this does not extend so far as requiring one company's facilities be used by another without any agreement between them or compensation for such use. Therefore, unless there is an existing arrangement or contract between two companies regarding track usage rights, no obligation exists on part of a larger railway corporation like NYCRR towards smaller ones like NY&P Co.

The dissenting opinion in the case of New York Central Railroad Company et al. v. New York and Pennsylvania Company argued that the majority's decision to allow a railroad company to acquire control over another competing line was contrary to public interest and violated antitrust laws. The dissent emphasized that such consolidation would lead to monopoly, stifle competition, and potentially result in higher prices for consumers. It also pointed out that allowing one corporation with vast resources to gain control over its competitor could undermine smaller companies' ability to compete fairly on an open market. Furthermore, it contended that this ruling contradicted previous court decisions which had sought to prevent monopolies from forming within the transportation industry.