The Southern Railway Company v. Crockett case in 1913 revolved around the issue of whether a state court could exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation that had not been served with process within the state. The plaintiff, Crockett, was injured while working for Southern Railway Company in Alabama and sued the company in Georgia where it also conducted business but wasn't incorporated or headquartered. The Supreme Court held that due process under the Fourteenth Amendment required that a defendant be given notice and opportunity to defend itself before being subjected to jurisdiction by a court. Therefore, since Southern Railway hadn’t been properly served with legal papers within Georgia’s borders, it couldn’t be forced into litigation there even though it did conduct some business operations within the state.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Southern Railway Company v. Crockett argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law. The dissenters believed that a contractual agreement between two parties should be upheld unless there is clear evidence of fraud or coercion, neither of which were present in this case. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how the court had previously interpreted similar cases, arguing for more consistency and predictability in legal decisions. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "reasonable" compensation for damages under contract law, asserting that such determinations should be left to juries rather than judges. Overall, they contended that by not upholding the original contractual agreement without sufficient reason and by overstepping its role regarding damage compensation determination, the Court undermined fundamental principles of contract law and set a dangerous precedent.