In the case of Title Guaranty & Surety Company v. United States, to the use of General Electric Company in 1911, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a bond contract. The General Electric Company had supplied materials for a construction project that was federally funded and when payment was not received, they sought compensation from Title Guaranty & Surety Co., who had issued performance bonds for the project contractor. The court held that under federal law at that time (the Heard Act), sureties on government contracts were liable to subcontractors and material suppliers if they were unpaid by contractors or subcontractors. This decision reinforced protection for companies supplying goods or services to federal projects by ensuring their right to seek compensation from sureties if necessary payments are not made.

In the dissenting opinion for Title Guaranty & Surety Company v. United States, to the use of General Electric Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a surety bond contract between Title Guaranty and General Electric (GE). He argued that GE was not entitled to recover from Title Guaranty because it had failed to fulfill its contractual obligations under their agreement. The justice believed that GE should have first sought payment from the principal debtor before turning to the surety company. Furthermore, he contended that by failing to notify Title Guaranty about changes in its contract with another party involved in this case, GE violated terms of their agreement which required such notification. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes' interpretation of these contracts and applicable laws at that time, he concluded that GE did not have a valid claim against Title Guaranty.