In the case of Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Swearingen, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas & Pacific Railway Company. The dispute arose when Mr. Swearingen filed a lawsuit against the railway company for damages caused by their negligence which resulted in his cattle dying due to exposure to cold weather during transportation from Fort Worth, Texas to New Orleans, Louisiana. However, there was an existing contract between both parties that exempted the railway company from any liability arising out of delays unless it was proven they were negligent and failed to use reasonable diligence in transporting goods or livestock under their care. The court held that although there might have been some delay on part of the railway company while transporting Mr. Swearingen's cattle leading them exposed to harsh weather conditions causing death; this alone did not constitute negligence as per terms agreed upon within their contract and thus could not be considered as grounds for claiming damages by Mr. Swearingen.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Swearingen, it was argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act. The dissent contended that the act did not intend to prohibit all preferences or advantages given by a carrier, but only those which were unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory. It was also pointed out that there is no evidence showing any intent on part of Congress to interfere with ordinary commercial transactions between carriers and shippers where such transactions do not result in unjust discrimination against other shippers. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly "transportation" had been defined by the majority as including services like refrigeration during transit; this broad definition could lead to unintended consequences and over-regulation of business practices.