In the case of Newburyport Water Company v. Newburyport, 1903, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of Newburyport. The dispute arose when the water company claimed that a contract existed between them and the city which granted them exclusive rights to supply water for public and private use within certain areas for a period of twenty years. However, before this term had expired, an act was passed by Massachusetts legislature authorizing another company to lay pipes and distribute water within these same limits. The court held that no such contract existed as it would have been against public policy to grant such exclusivity without clear legislative intent or explicit contractual language stating so. Furthermore, even if there were any ambiguity about whether such a contract did exist or not; under Massachusetts law at that time (which is what governed), all doubts regarding interpretation should be resolved in favor of public rights rather than those claiming under grants from government bodies.

In the dissenting opinion for Newburyport Water Company v. Newburyport, it was argued that the city of Newburyport had no right to take over a private water company without providing just compensation. The justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Massachusetts state law, which they believed allowed municipalities to seize control of privately-owned utilities in order to provide public services. They contended that this action violated constitutional protections against government seizure of private property without fair payment and due process under law. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on business confidence and investment if governments could arbitrarily confiscate companies' assets without adequate remuneration or legal recourse.