In the case of Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Wall, Administrator in 1915, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and rights under railroad grants. The administrator of an estate claimed that they owned certain lands by virtue of a patent issued to them by the United States government. However, Northern Pacific Railway argued that it held title to these same lands due to its status as a federally chartered corporation with granted land rights for railway construction purposes. The court found in favor of Northern Pacific Railway Co., stating that when Congress had passed legislation granting lands for railway use, it intended those grants to take precedence over any subsequent patents issued by the government unless explicitly stated otherwise in law or contract terms. This decision clarified federal policy regarding land grant disputes between private individuals and corporations operating under Congressional authority; affirming priority is given to entities like railroads who received their titles directly from acts of Congress rather than through later-issued patents.

The dissenting opinion in the Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Wall case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to compensate for livestock killed on their tracks, even if due care was exercised, was an unjust imposition on interstate commerce. The dissent contended that this ruling effectively allowed states to regulate and burden interstate commerce by imposing liability without fault upon companies engaged in such trade - something they believed should be under federal jurisdiction only. They also expressed concern about the potential financial impact of this decision on railway companies who would now have to bear these costs despite having taken all reasonable precautions against such accidents.