The Union Trust Company and Security Warehousing Company v. Wilson case in 1904 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of certain bonds. The plaintiff, Union Trust Company, claimed that it had purchased these bonds from the defendant, Wilson. However, Wilson argued that he never sold any such bonds to the plaintiff and thus denied their claim of ownership. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wilson stating there was no evidence proving that he had indeed sold those particular bonds to Union Trust Company or Security Warehousing company as they alleged.

In the dissenting opinion for Union Trust Company and Security Warehousing Company v. Wilson, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's view that a corporation could not be held liable for damages caused by its employees' negligence if it was acting as an agent of another entity at the time. He argued that this interpretation contradicted established legal principles holding corporations accountable for their actions regardless of whether they were performed on behalf of themselves or others. Furthermore, he contended that allowing such immunity would create a dangerous precedent where corporations could evade responsibility simply by claiming to act as agents. This, according to him, would undermine public confidence in corporate accountability and justice system overall.