The case of Put-In-Bay Waterworks, Light & Railway Company v. Ryan in 1900 revolved around a dispute over the validity of a contract for water supply and lighting services on South Bass Island, Ohio. The plaintiff, Put-In-Bay Waterworks, Light & Railway Company claimed that it had an exclusive right to provide these services based on its charter from the state legislature. However, the defendant John G. Ryan argued that this was not valid as he had been granted permission by local authorities to construct his own system for supplying water and light within his property boundaries which did not infringe upon any rights held by the company. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ryan stating that while corporations may have certain privileges or franchises conferred upon them by their charters; they do not possess monopolistic powers unless explicitly stated so in their charter or if such power is necessarily implied from its provisions - neither condition being met here. Therefore, individuals retain their inherent right to use their private property as they see fit including erecting structures necessary for providing utilities like water and light without interference from corporate entities claiming exclusivity unless specifically prohibited by law.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Put-In-Bay Waterworks, Light & Railway Company v. Ryan, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors in how evidence had been handled and interpreted during trial proceedings. They contended that these mistakes led to an unjust verdict against Put-In-Bay Waterworks, Light & Railway Company. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Ohio state law regarding water rights and property ownership; arguing instead for a more expansive understanding which would have favored corporate interests over individual ones in this instance. In their view, upholding such a flawed judgment set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar disputes between corporations and private citizens.