The Rogers Locomotive Machine Works v. American Emigrant Company case in 1896 revolved around a dispute over the payment for locomotives that were ordered by the American Emigrant Company from The Rogers Locomotive Machine Works. The latter company sued to recover money owed, while the former claimed they had been defrauded and refused to pay. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the locomotive company, stating that even if there was fraud involved on part of an agent who facilitated this transaction, it did not absolve the emigrant company from their obligation to pay for goods received and accepted as per contract terms. This ruling reinforced principles related to contractual obligations and responsibilities regardless of fraudulent activities by third parties.

In the dissenting opinion for The Rogers Locomotive Machine Works v. American Emigrant Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a purchaser of property liable for unpaid vendor debts contradicted established legal principles. The dissent emphasized that when an individual purchases property in good faith and without knowledge of any existing liens or encumbrances, they should not be held responsible for such liabilities. They further contended that if a lien existed on the purchased property, it was incumbent upon the seller to disclose this information before finalizing the sale; failure to do so should not penalize innocent purchasers who acted in good faith. This perspective fundamentally disagreed with the majority’s ruling which essentially allowed undisclosed financial obligations tied to a piece of property to transfer onto unsuspecting buyers post-purchase.