The Stein v. Bienville Water Supply Company case in 1890 revolved around a contract dispute between the two parties. The plaintiff, Stein, had entered into an agreement with the defendant company to supply water for his property in New Orleans from their reservoirs located outside city limits. However, when the company failed to fulfill its obligations under this contract and ceased supplying water, Stein sued for breach of contract and sought damages. The Supreme Court ruled that while there was indeed a valid binding agreement between both parties which required specific performance by Bienville Water Supply Company, it did not have jurisdiction over this matter as it fell within state law rather than federal law due to lack of diversity among parties involved (both were residents of Louisiana). Therefore, despite acknowledging that the defendant breached its contractual obligation towards Stein by failing to provide him with water as agreed upon initially; they dismissed his claim on grounds of improper jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Stein v. Bienville Water Supply Company, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider the rights of private corporations and their shareholders. He contended that while a state has power over its own creations, such as municipal corporations, this does not extend to private companies even if they serve public interests. The justice emphasized that these entities have rights under contracts which should be respected by courts unless there is explicit legislative authority allowing interference with those agreements. Furthermore, he asserted that any changes in rates or services provided by these companies must be reasonable and fair both to consumers and investors alike; otherwise it would constitute an infringement on property rights without due process of law.