In the 1892 case Sheffield Furnace Company v. Witherow, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Witherow, upholding a lower court's decision. The dispute arose when Sheffield Furnace Company failed to fulfill its contractual obligations to deliver iron ore to Witherow at an agreed price and time frame. When Sheffield defaulted on this agreement due to financial difficulties, it led Witherow into losses as he had already made arrangements for smelting based on their contract terms. Consequently, he sued for damages which were awarded by a lower court. Sheffield appealed this decision arguing that they should not be held liable since there was no market value for iron ore at the place of delivery during that period; hence it would be impossible to ascertain any loss suffered by Witherow accurately. However, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments stating that even if there is no established market value at a specific location or time does not mean one cannot determine fair compensation based on other factors such as cost incurred in preparation or alternative sources' prices.

In the dissenting opinion for Sheffield Furnace Company v. Witherow, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Witherow was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant procedural errors made by the lower courts which should have resulted in a reversal of their decisions. They contended that these mistakes included an erroneous interpretation and application of Alabama law regarding land ownership rights and mineral resources extraction, as well as missteps in how evidence was considered during trial proceedings. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on whether or not Sheffield Furnace Company had been given sufficient notice about legal actions taken against them related to property disputes involving coal mining operations. Overall, they felt strongly that justice had not been served due to these issues and expressed concern over potential negative implications this case could have for future similar cases.