The Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Weber case in 1921 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of an indemnity clause in a contract between the two parties. The railroad company had leased land to Jacoby & Co., who agreed to hold the lessor harmless from any liability for damages on account of injuries or death resulting from negligence, carelessness, or misconduct by Jacoby & Co. When an employee was injured due to alleged negligence by both parties and sued them both, Weber (the surviving partner) refused to indemnify Pennsylvania Railroad as per their agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that under common law principles and based on the wording of their contract, Weber was obligated to protect Pennsylvania Railroad even if they were partially at fault for the accident. This decision clarified how broad indemnification clauses are interpreted when multiple parties contribute towards causing damage.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Weber argued that the majority's decision was flawed due to its interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act and its application to this particular case. The dissent believed that there was no violation by Pennsylvania Railroad Company as it had not given any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage, nor subjected anyone to any prejudice or disadvantage concerning interstate commerce. They also disagreed with how damages were calculated for Jacoby & Co., arguing they should be based on actual loss suffered rather than a comparison between rates charged by different railroads. Furthermore, they contended that if a railroad company is found guilty of violating the act, penalties should be imposed according to law instead of making them liable for all losses resulting from such violations without considering whether these losses are directly caused by their actions.