The Pere Marquette Railway Company v. J.F. French & Company case in 1920 revolved around a dispute over the responsibility for damages to goods during transportation. The plaintiff, J.F. French & Co., had shipped goods via the defendant's railway line and claimed that due to negligence on part of the railway company, their shipment was damaged by fire while in transit. However, the Pere Marquette Railway Company argued that they were not liable as per an agreement between them and J.F. French & Co., which stated that any damage caused by fire would be at shipper’s risk unless it could be proven that such damage resulted from negligence or fault of carrier personnel. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pere Marquette Railway Company stating there was no evidence proving their negligence led to the fire causing damage to shipments owned by J.F French & Co.. Therefore, under terms agreed upon priorly between both parties involved where liability for loss or damage due to fires rested with shippers except when said fires were directly attributable through proof towards carriers' neglect or error; this particular incident did not make defendants liable.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pere Marquette Railway Company v. J.F. French & Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and misinterpreted the law regarding freight charges. The dissent believed that a shipper should not be held responsible for additional freight charges if they were not informed about them at the time of shipment, as per common carrier rules and regulations. They contended that it is unjust to hold shippers accountable for extra costs when they had no way of knowing or agreeing to these fees beforehand, especially since carriers have full control over their rates and routes. Furthermore, this ruling could potentially allow railroads to arbitrarily increase prices without any checks or balances, which would undermine fair trade practices.