In the Webster v. Fargo case of 1900, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wells Fargo & Co., a banking and express company, against plaintiff John A. Webster who was seeking damages for an alleged breach of contract involving transportation and delivery services provided by Wells Fargo. The court found that there was no evidence to support Webster's claim that he had suffered any loss or damage due to negligence on part of Wells Fargo while transporting his goods from San Francisco to New York City via Panama route as per their agreement. Webster claimed that the delay in delivering his goods caused him financial losses but failed to provide sufficient proof supporting this assertion. He also argued about certain terms within the contract which were deemed ambiguous by lower courts; however, these ambiguities did not affect the overall validity or enforceability of said contract according to higher courts' interpretation. The Supreme Court upheld previous rulings stating that unless specific harm can be proven resulting directly from a party's failure to fulfill contractual obligations (in this case timely delivery), claims for damages are unjustified and should be dismissed.

The dissenting opinion in the Webster v. Fargo case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on stock dividends was incorrect, as it violated principles of double taxation. The dissenters believed that taxing both corporate profits and individual shareholder dividends amounted to an unfair form of double taxation. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes income under federal law, arguing that stock dividends should not be considered taxable income because they do not increase a shareholder’s wealth but merely represent a rearrangement of existing assets. Furthermore, they contended that this ruling could potentially discourage investment and harm economic growth by imposing excessive burdens on shareholders and corporations alike.