The Southern Kansas Railway Company v. Briscoe case in 1891 revolved around a dispute over land rights. The railway company had been granted certain lands by the U.S government under an act of Congress, with the condition that if any part of these lands were sold to settlers within three years at less than $2.50 per acre, then those specific parcels would revert back to public domain status. A settler named Briscoe purchased some of this land from another party who had bought it from the railway company for less than $2.50 per acre within the specified time frame and claimed ownership based on its reversion to public domain status due to violation of conditions set by Congress. However, The Supreme Court ruled against Briscoe stating that only United States could enforce such forfeiture conditions and private individuals like him did not have standing or right to do so even though they might be directly affected by it.

In the dissenting opinion for Southern Kansas Railway Company v. Briscoe, Justice Brewer argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the law and its application to this case. He contended that a railway company should not be held liable for damages caused by sparks from one of their locomotives if they have taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such an occurrence. According to him, it was unjustifiable to hold companies responsible for accidents beyond their control or prevention capabilities. The ruling set a dangerous precedent where businesses could be penalized unfairly despite adhering strictly to safety measures and regulations, thereby discouraging entrepreneurship and stifling economic growth.