In the case of Reymann Brewing Company v. Brister in 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and tax obligations. The Reymann Brewing Company had leased a piece of land from Mr. Brister with an agreement that they would pay all taxes levied upon it during their tenancy period. However, when the city assessed special taxes for street improvements directly benefiting the property, Reymann refused to pay them arguing that these were not included in their lease agreement as they were not general but special taxes imposed for local improvements which enhanced its value significantly. The court held that under West Virginia law, such assessments are considered to be 'taxes' and thus fell within the scope of what was agreed upon by both parties in their contract. Therefore, it was decided that Reymann Brewing Company was liable to pay these additional charges despite them being classified as 'special'. This decision reinforced contractual obligations between private entities while also clarifying how different types of taxation should be interpreted legally.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Reymann Brewing Company v. Brister, it was argued that there were no grounds to reverse the decision made by lower courts in favor of Brister. The dissenting justices believed that a contract had been established between both parties and should be upheld. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of West Virginia law regarding liquor sales, asserting that it did not prohibit contracts like those at issue in this case from being enforced outside state borders. Furthermore, they contended that even if such prohibition existed within West Virginia law, it would violate interstate commerce regulations under federal jurisdiction. Thus, according to their view, either way - whether through upholding contractual obligations or adhering to constitutional principles - Brister should have prevailed in his claim against Reymann Brewing Company.