The U.S. Supreme Court case St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company in 1890 revolved around a dispute over land grants given to railroad companies by the federal government for railway construction purposes. The St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company claimed that it had rights to certain lands under an 1864 grant, while the Northern Pacific Railroad argued that those same lands were granted to them under an earlier act from 1857 which was later forfeited but then reinstated in their favor through subsequent legislation in 1870 and beyond. The court ruled against St.Paul & Pacific, stating that when Congress passed the forfeiture act of July 15th,1862 they did not intend for other railroads (like St.Paul & Pacific) to be able to claim these forfeited lands before they were officially declared as such by Interior Department officials or until after six months following this declaration - neither condition having been met here. This decision clarified how Congressional acts related to land grants should be interpreted with respect towards timing of forfeiture declarations and claims on said lands; essentially ruling that first come does not always mean first served if conditions set forth by Congress are not met.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider key aspects of contract law and property rights. The dissenting justices believed that the original agreement between both railroad companies should have been honored as a binding contract, despite subsequent changes in circumstances or perceived benefits to public interest. They contended that disregarding this principle would undermine legal certainty and predictability in business transactions, which are fundamental elements of a stable commercial environment. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential infringement on private property rights if courts could arbitrarily alter contractual obligations based on subjective assessments of what might be more beneficial for society at large.