In the case of Osborn et al., Trustees of the Hastings and Dakota Railway Co. v. Froyseth, 1909, the US Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a railway company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who was working on a section of track that had been leased to another company at the time of his accident. The plaintiff argued that as he was employed by both companies, they should share liability for his injuries. However, it emerged during proceedings that while he did work for both companies, he only worked on tracks owned or operated by them when not under lease to other entities. The court ruled in favor of Hastings and Dakota Railway Company stating that since Mr.Froyseth's injury occurred on a portion leased out to another entity at the time; therefore it is not responsible for any damages incurred thereon even if Mr.Froyseth happened to be their employee too.

In the dissenting opinion for Osborn et al., Trustees of the Hastings and Dakota Railway Co. v. Froyseth, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret and apply relevant law regarding land grants for railway construction. The dissent contended that under existing legislation, a railroad company could only claim lands within its granted limits which were public property at the time when their line of road was definitely fixed, not those subsequently acquired by government purchase or forfeiture from another grantee. They believed this interpretation should have led to a ruling in favor of Froyseth because he had purchased his land after it reverted back to public domain following forfeiture by another railway company before Hastings and Dakota Railway Company’s route was definitively established. Therefore, they felt that these lands were not available for granting when Hastings' route became definite as required by law.