The U.S. Supreme Court case Spokane and British Columbia Railway Company v. Washington and Great Northern Railway Company in 1910 revolved around a dispute over railway rights-of-way through federally owned land in the state of Washington. The Spokane and British Columbia Railway claimed that they had been granted these rights by an act of Congress, while the Washington and Great Northern argued that this grant was invalid because it conflicted with their own earlier grant from the same land. The court ruled in favor of the Spokane company, stating that their grant did not conflict with any previous grants as those were made under different acts which didn't overlap geographically or temporally. Therefore, both companies could operate on separate sections without infringing upon each other's rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Spokane and British Columbia Railway Company v. Washington and Great Northern Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Washington and Great Northern Railway Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the original contract between both railway companies should have been honored as written, without interference from courts or other external parties. They contended that by allowing such interference, they were setting a dangerous precedent where contracts could be easily disregarded based on subjective interpretations of fairness or equity rather than objective legal principles. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on business confidence and predictability if contractual obligations could be so readily set aside by judicial intervention.