Robertson v. Salomon was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the concept of corporate separateness. The case involved a dispute between the Salomon brothers, a London-based firm, and the Robertson family, who owned a majority of the firm’s shares. The Robertsons had loaned money to the firm and wanted to be repaid, but the Salomons refused. The Robertsons then sued the Salomons, claiming that the firm was a sham and that the Salomons were personally liable for the debt. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Salomons, holding that the firm was a separate legal entity from its shareholders and that the Salomons were not personally liable for the debt. The Court held that the firm was a distinct legal entity, and that the Salomons were not personally liable for the debt. This ruling established the concept of corporate separateness, which is still in effect today. The Court also held that the Salomons had acted in good faith and that the Robertsons had not proven that the Salomons had acted fraudulently. This ruling established the principle that shareholders are not personally liable for the debts of the corporation.

In the Supreme Court case of Robertson v. Salomon, Justice Holmes wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was too broad and could have far-reaching implications for corporate law. He believed that by allowing a single shareholder to incorporate his business as an artificial person, it would create a situation where one individual could control multiple corporations without any legal accountability or responsibility. Furthermore, he felt this ruling would lead to increased complexity in corporate law and ultimately result in unfairness towards creditors who may not be able to collect on their debts if they are unable to identify all of the shareholders associated with each corporation. In conclusion, Justice Holmes argued that while there may be some benefits from allowing incorporation under certain circumstances, such as protecting investors from personal liability for company debts or providing limited liability protection for shareholders; these should only occur when strict regulations are put into place so as not to undermine existing laws governing corporations and their obligations toward creditors.