In the case of West Company v. Lea in 1898, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights and royalties. The plaintiff, West Company, had purchased patents for certain improvements in cotton presses from their original owner who later sold similar patents to another party (Lea). When Lea refused to pay royalties to West Company as per their agreement with the original patent holder, West sued for breach of contract. However, the court found that since there was no explicit provision in the sales contract between West and the original patent holder requiring subsequent purchasers like Lea to pay royalties directly to them instead of him; it could not enforce such an obligation onto Lea without his consent or knowledge about this arrangement at time of purchase. Therefore, it held that while a purchaser can be bound by conditions attached explicitly within a sale transaction he is partaking into; he cannot be made liable for obligations arising out from separate agreements between previous parties which were not disclosed or agreed upon by him during his own purchase.

In the dissenting opinion for West Company v. Lea, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring all legal publications to be printed within the state violated both interstate commerce and First Amendment rights. The dissenting justices believed that this law unfairly restricted out-of-state publishers from competing in Tennessee's market, thus infringing on their right to engage in interstate commerce. They also contended that by limiting who could publish legal materials, the law infringed upon freedom of speech and press as protected under the First Amendment. Furthermore, they asserted that such restrictions were not necessary for maintaining an efficient judicial system or ensuring accurate reporting of court decisions - two reasons given by supporters of these laws - because there were other ways to achieve these goals without restricting competition or free expression.