In the 1898 case of Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company v. Long Island Loan and Trust Company, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railroad bonds. The Long Island Loan and Trust Company was acting as trustee for bondholders who held securities in a railway line that had been leased to the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway (PCC&StL). When PCC&StL defaulted on its lease payments due to financial difficulties caused by an economic downturn in 1893-94, it led to litigation over whether or not they were obligated under their lease agreement to pay interest on these bonds even if this meant going into debt themselves. The court ultimately decided against PCC&StL's argument that they should be exempt from paying these obligations because of their financial hardship during an economic depression period; instead ruling in favor of the trust company’s claim that PCC&StL still owed them money according to terms set out in their original contract regardless of any external circumstances affecting profitability.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company v. Long Island Loan and Trust Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret the law regarding railroad company bonds. The dissent believed that a bondholder should not be able to sue for payment on their bonds until after they have matured unless there is an explicit provision allowing them to do so in the contract between themselves and the railway company. They contended that this interpretation would protect both parties' interests more effectively than allowing premature lawsuits as per majority ruling which could potentially harm businesses by forcing them into bankruptcy before they had a chance to pay off their debts when due.