The Northern Pacific Railway Company v. McComas case in 1918 revolved around a dispute over land ownership. The Northern Pacific Railway Company claimed that they had been granted the disputed lands by an act of Congress in 1864, which was intended to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from Lake Superior to Puget Sound on the Pacific coast. However, McComas argued that he held valid title to these lands under homestead laws enacted by Congress at later dates for settlement purposes. The Supreme Court ruled against the railway company, stating that their claim did not hold up because when there is conflict between two federal statutes - one granting land rights for railroads and another allowing settlers' claims - preference should be given to actual settlers who have made improvements on public lands with intent of making it their home as per Homestead Act provisions. This decision upheld previous rulings where courts favored settler's rights over corporate interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Northern Pacific Railway Company et al. v. McComas, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed an individual to sue a railway company over land rights despite having signed away those rights in a previous contract. He argued that the plaintiff had willingly entered into this agreement and should be held accountable for its terms, even if they later proved unfavorable. Furthermore, he contended that it was not within the Court’s jurisdiction to interfere with such contracts unless there were clear indications of fraud or coercion involved in their formation – neither of which were present in this case according to him. The justice also expressed concern about setting precedent where courts could arbitrarily invalidate contracts simply because one party found them disadvantageous at some point after signing them.