In the 1893 case of Seney v. Wabash Western Railway Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a train owned by Wabash Western Railway struck and killed livestock belonging to Mr. Seney who had wandered onto an unfenced portion of their track in Iowa. According to state law at that time, railroads were required to fence their tracks or be held liable for damages caused due to accidents involving animals straying onto those tracks. However, Wabash argued that they were exempt from this law as it was part of an interstate line under federal jurisdiction rather than state jurisdiction - a claim upheld by both lower courts and eventually confirmed by the Supreme Court itself. The court's decision hinged on its interpretation of Congress' power over interstate commerce; specifically whether it extended to regulations concerning fencing along railroad lines crossing multiple states. They concluded that such matters did indeed fall within federal purview thereby rendering Iowa's specific laws irrelevant in this instance.

In the dissenting opinion for Seney v. Wabash Western Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the railway company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court which should have resulted in a new trial being ordered. They contended that these errors included improper jury instructions and an erroneous interpretation of law regarding negligence and liability on part of railroad companies for accidents occurring at crossings. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence had been handled during proceedings; specifically, they felt certain pieces of evidence presented by plaintiff should not have been excluded from consideration as it could potentially prove negligence on part of defendant railway company. Therefore, according to this view, upholding such flawed judgment would set a dangerous precedent where railroads could escape responsibility for their negligent actions leading to injuries or deaths at crossings.