The Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company case in 1916 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the rights of railway companies to acquire property for their operations. The plaintiff, Mr. Raymond, contended that he was the rightful owner of certain lands in Minnesota which were being used by the defendant railway company without his consent or any compensation paid to him. He sought an injunction against them from further use of his property and demanded damages for past usage as well. However, it emerged during proceedings that these lands had been granted by Congress to another railroad company (the Southern Minnesota Railroad) back in 1865 under a statute designed to encourage construction of railroads across unsettled territories; this grant included all necessary ground for constructing and operating said railroads. The Supreme Court ruled against Mr.Raymond stating that when Congress grants such charters they implicitly give permission for those companies (or their successors) to take possession of such properties even if they are privately owned - provided fair compensation is given - because public necessity outweighs private inconvenience in these matters.

In the dissenting opinion for Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to maintain fences along their tracks was an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. The dissenting justices believed that this requirement imposed undue burdens on railroad companies and could potentially disrupt trade between states by making it more difficult and costly for them to operate. They also expressed concern about the potential for such laws to be used as protectionist measures by individual states seeking to disadvantage out-of-state competitors in favor of local businesses. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous court decisions related to similar issues, arguing that those cases did not establish a precedent supporting state regulation of railroad fencing.