In the case of Western Union Telegraph Company v. Nester et al., 1939, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nestor and his co-defendants. The dispute arose when a telegraph sent by Western Union was not delivered on time due to negligence, resulting in financial loss for Nestor. The company argued that its liability should be limited as per terms printed on the backside of their receipt which stated they would only be liable for mistakes caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct and not ordinary negligence. However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually the Supreme Court because these terms were deemed unreasonable and against public policy since it allowed companies to escape responsibility for their own carelessness or errors without any significant consequences. Therefore, it held that such contractual provisions limiting liability are unenforceable if they protect parties from losses arising out of their own ordinary negligence.

In the dissenting opinion for Western Union Telegraph Company v. Nester et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania statute that allowed recipients of money orders to sue telegraph companies in local courts. He argued that this law violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. According to him, allowing individual states to regulate such transactions would lead to a chaotic and unmanageable system where businesses involved in interstate commerce could be subject to different rules and regulations in every state they operate within. Furthermore, he contended that it was unfair for telegraph companies like Western Union - who merely act as intermediaries between sender and receiver -  to bear legal responsibility when issues arise during these transactions.