The Southern Railway Company et al. v. City of Durham, North Carolina case in 1924 revolved around the legality of a city ordinance that required railway companies to pay for street improvements adjacent to their tracks. The Southern Railway Company and other railroads challenged this ordinance, arguing it was unconstitutional as it unfairly imposed costs on them that should be borne by the public at large. However, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of such ordinances under municipal police power if they were reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory. In its decision, the court emphasized that railways are not exempt from bearing a fair share of local improvement expenses merely because they serve interstate commerce purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for Southern Railway Company et al. v. City of Durham, North Carolina, it was argued that the city's ordinance requiring railway companies to install safety gates at street crossings did not constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce and therefore should not be invalidated by federal law. The dissenting justices believed that such a local regulation is within the power of municipalities as they are responsible for ensuring public safety in their jurisdictions. They contended that this type of regulation does not directly interfere with interstate commerce but merely imposes conditions under which it must operate within a particular locality - something they viewed as permissible under existing legal precedents. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view about who should bear costs associated with these types of regulations; arguing instead that businesses benefiting from operating in certain areas also have responsibilities towards those communities' welfare.