In the Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Myers case of 1898, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Northern Pacific Railway Company. The dispute arose when Myers sued the railway company for damages after his cattle were killed on an unfenced portion of their track, which was against Montana state law requiring railways to fence their tracks. However, this state law conflicted with a federal statute that granted land to railroad companies under certain conditions and did not require fencing. The court held that while states have power over local matters such as property damage caused by railroads within their borders, they cannot interfere with federal regulation or control over interstate commerce provided by Congress through legislation or constitutional provisions. In this instance, it was determined that Montana's fencing requirement interfered with the operation of interstate trains and thus violated federal authority over interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Myers, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Mr. Myers was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and property rights. The dissenting justices believed that the railway company had not breached its contract with Mr. Myers by refusing to transport his goods at a reduced rate as he claimed, but rather had acted within its rights under existing laws and regulations governing rail transportation rates at that time. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "reasonable" rates for rail services, arguing instead for a more flexible approach based on market conditions and other relevant factors such as distance traveled or type of goods transported rather than fixed statutory limits imposed by state legislatures or courts without due regard for these considerations.