In the 1892 case of Richmond and Danville Railroad Company v. Elliott, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elliott, a landowner whose property was taken by the railroad company for construction purposes without proper compensation. The court held that under Georgia law, it was illegal to take private property for public use without just compensation or due process of law. This decision upheld an earlier ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court which had also sided with Elliot. The railway company argued that they were not required to compensate because they were acting under authority granted by state legislation; however, this argument was rejected as it violated constitutional rights protected under both federal and state laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Richmond and Danville Railroad Company v. Elliott, Justice Brewer argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of Georgia's statute of limitations law. He believed that the plaintiff should not be barred from bringing his claim due to a misunderstanding about when exactly his cause of action arose under state law. According to Justice Brewer, it was unfair to penalize the plaintiff for this confusion given that even legal experts disagreed on how to interpret Georgia's statute. Furthermore, he contended that there were significant policy reasons against interpreting statutes of limitations in such a strict manner because doing so could discourage injured parties from seeking redress through litigation. In sum, Justice Brewer felt strongly that courts should strive towards fairness and justice rather than rigidly adhering to technicalities within statutory language.