The Shawnee Compress Company v. Anderson case in 1907 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of cotton bales. The plaintiff, Shawnee Compress Company, claimed that it had purchased the cotton from an agent who was authorized to sell it on behalf of its owner. However, the defendant, Anderson (the original owner), argued that his agent did not have authority to sell and hence he still owned the cotton. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Anderson stating that there was no evidence proving that Anderson's agent had been given explicit permission or authority to sell his property (cotton). Therefore, despite having paid for and taken possession of the goods under good faith belief they were purchasing from an authorized seller; Shawnee Compress Company could not be considered as lawful owners since they bought them from someone without legal right or capacity to sell.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Shawnee Compress Company v. Anderson argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to consider important factors. The dissent, led by Justice Harlan, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "interstate commerce," arguing it should include not only physical transportation across state lines but also activities closely related or essential to such transportation. They believed that a broader interpretation would better protect workers' rights and ensure fair competition among businesses. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for ignoring evidence showing that compress companies like Shawnee had significant control over interstate commerce due to their role in preparing cotton for shipment. This power could be used unfairly against farmers and other small-scale producers who depend on these services to access markets outside their states.