Union Trust Company v. Southern Inland Navigation and Improvement Company was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between the Union Trust Company and the Southern Inland Navigation and Improvement Company over a contract for the construction of a canal. The Union Trust Company had loaned money to the Southern Inland Navigation and Improvement Company to finance the construction of the canal, and the Southern Inland Navigation and Improvement Company had agreed to repay the loan with interest. The Southern Inland Navigation and Improvement Company failed to make the payments, and the Union Trust Company sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the Union Trust Company was entitled to recover the amount of the loan plus interest. The Court also held that the Southern Inland Navigation and Improvement Company was liable for the costs of the suit, including attorney's fees. The Court reasoned that the Southern Inland Navigation and Improvement Company had breached its contract with the Union Trust Company, and that the Union Trust Company was entitled to recover its costs in bringing the suit. The decision in Union Trust Company v. Southern Inland Navigation and Improvement Company established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for the costs of the suit, including attorney's fees. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it is still an important precedent in contract law.

In the dissenting opinion for Union Trust Company v. Southern Inland Navigation and Improvement Company, Justice Brewer argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on a misreading of the contract between the two parties. He believed that it should be interpreted in accordance with its plain language, which stated that if any part of an installment payment was not paid within 30 days after due date then all payments would become immediately due and payable. The majority had instead held that only those installments specifically mentioned in the contract were affected by this clause; however, Justice Brewer disagreed as he felt this interpretation did not make sense given how specific other parts of the agreement were worded. Furthermore, he noted how such a narrow reading could lead to absurd results where one party is able to take advantage of another despite having breached their contractual obligations. Ultimately, his dissent concluded by emphasizing how important it is for courts to interpret contracts according to their plain language rather than attempting to rewrite them or create new meanings out of thin air.