In the Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Reeder case of 1897, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas and Pacific Railway Company, reversing a decision made by the Circuit Court for Western District of Louisiana. The dispute arose when Reeder claimed that his land was wrongfully included within limits granted to the railway company by Congress under an act passed in 1871. He sought to recover damages for timber removed from this land by the railway company. However, it was found that at no point did he have legal title or possession over this property during its use by the railway company; rather, he acquired title only after these events took place through a patent issued in 1889 which could not retroactively affect rights previously vested. Therefore, as per law applicable then (Revised Statutes § 931), since neither actual possession nor commencement of proceedings to try titles occurred before passage of Act granting lands to railroad companies became effective - such grant is deemed absolute against all parties without notice thereof except United States.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Reeder argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding railroad companies' liability for damages caused by fires started by their locomotives. The dissent contended that, under existing law, railroads were considered to be engaged in a hazardous business and therefore held to strict liability standards. This meant they could be held responsible for any damage caused by their operations, regardless of whether negligence could be proven or not. However, the majority ruling deviated from this principle by requiring proof of negligence on part of the railway company before it can be held liable for damages resulting from fires sparked off its engines. The dissent believed this shift undermined established legal principles and unfairly protected railway companies at expense of those who suffered losses due to such fires.