In the case of Noble v. United States, 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States and against Mr. Noble who was operating as Noble Transit Co. The issue at hand involved a contract dispute between Mr. Noble and the federal government regarding transportation services provided by his company during World War I under an agreement with Quartermaster Corps of U.S Army. After providing these services, he submitted claims for additional compensation based on increased costs due to war conditions which were rejected by Quartermaster General but later approved by Congress through special legislation allowing such claims to be settled in Court of Claims. The court held that despite this legislative approval, it did not automatically entitle him to recover full amount claimed without proving liability under terms of original contract or establishing illegality or fraud associated with its execution or performance - neither of which he could prove satisfactorily before Court Of Claims nor Supreme Court. Therefore, while acknowledging that wartime circumstances may have caused financial hardship for contractors like Mr.Noble,the court maintained that any relief should come from Congress rather than courts interpreting contracts beyond their explicit terms.This decision reinforced principle that contractual obligations cannot be altered retroactively without mutual consent even under extraordinary circumstances unless there's clear evidence supporting such changes.

In the dissenting opinion for Noble v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its bounds by ordering a private bus company to provide service on a route it deemed unprofitable and wished to abandon. He contended that while the ICC has regulatory power, it does not have absolute control over individual businesses' operations. The majority's decision effectively turned Noble Transit Co., a privately-owned business, into an involuntary public utility without compensation - which he viewed as unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s protection against taking private property for public use without just compensation. Furthermore, he believed this ruling could set dangerous precedent where any transportation business could be forced into service regardless of profitability or desire to operate in certain areas.