In the case of Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company v. Balfour in 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land grants for railroad construction. The plaintiff, Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company, claimed that it was entitled to certain lands under an act of Congress from 1866 which granted public lands to aid in building a railroad line. However, these claims were contested by defendant Balfour who had purchased some of this land from another party who received them as military bounty land warrants (a type of federal land grant). The court held that the company's rights to these lands did not vest until they had been identified by official surveys approved by the Commissioner of General Land Office. Since such identification occurred after Balfour’s purchase date, his title prevailed over that of the company's claim.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company v. Balfour argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it did not properly consider the rights of a corporation to protect its property from damage caused by an individual's actions. The dissenters believed that if an individual intentionally causes harm to a company’s property, then they should be held accountable for their actions regardless of whether or not they were aware that their conduct would result in such damages. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of negligence, arguing that even unintentional acts can still constitute negligence if they lead to foreseeable harm. Therefore, according to this view, Mr. Balfour should have been found liable for damaging Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company’s bridge since he could have foreseen potential damage when he set his raft adrift on a river known for its strong currents.