In the case of Seeman et al. v. Philadelphia Warehouse Company, 1926, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a warehouse company could be held liable for damages when goods stored in its facility were destroyed by fire. The plaintiffs argued that as bailees (those who temporarily take charge of another's property), the warehouse company had a duty to protect their goods and should compensate them for their loss. However, the contract between both parties explicitly stated that the warehouse company would not be responsible for any losses or damages caused by factors beyond its control such as fire, water damage etc., unless it was due to negligence on part of the warehouse company itself. The court ruled in favor of Philadelphia Warehouse Company stating that they cannot be held liable since there was no evidence suggesting negligence on their part leading to fire outbreak which resulted in destruction of goods stored within its premises. Furthermore, it upheld validity and enforceability of exculpatory clauses present within storage contracts which absolve companies from liability under certain circumstances.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Seeman et al. v. Philadelphia Warehouse Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania tax on out-of-state corporations was unconstitutional and violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. The dissent contended that this state-imposed tax unfairly burdened out-of-state businesses by taxing them for activities conducted entirely outside of Pennsylvania's jurisdiction, thereby interfering with interstate commerce and undermining federal authority in this area. They believed that such taxes should only be levied on business operations occurring within state boundaries or directly benefiting from state services or protections, not those taking place across state lines without any direct connection to Pennsylvania itself.