The U.S. Supreme Court case St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company et al. v. Spiller et al., 1926, revolved around the issue of whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by sparks from one of its locomotives igniting and destroying property near the railway line in Oklahoma, even though it had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such an incident from occurring. In this case, Mr. Spiller's cotton crop was destroyed by fire allegedly started by sparks emitted from a passing train operated by the St.Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company (the Frisco). The court ruled that despite having used spark arresters on their trains as required under state law and taking other necessary precautions to prevent fires, if it is proven that sparks or cinders escaping from engines have set fire to adjacent properties causing damage then railroads are liable for those damages regardless of negligence. This ruling upheld previous decisions establishing strict liability for railroads when their operations result in damage or destruction of neighboring properties.

In the dissenting opinion for St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company v. Spiller, Justice Stone disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act and its application to this case. He argued that Congress intended for railroads to have some flexibility in setting rates, as long as they were just and reasonable. The majority's decision effectively removed this discretion by requiring strict adherence to published tariffs without considering whether those tariffs resulted in fair or unfair charges under specific circumstances. This rigid approach could lead to unjust outcomes and was not what lawmakers had envisioned when drafting legislation regulating interstate commerce.