In the 1920 case Western Union Telegraph Company v. Speight, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Western Union Telegraph Company. The dispute arose when Mrs. Speight sued Western Union for damages after they failed to deliver a telegram from her husband who was on his deathbed in Texas, while she was in North Carolina. She claimed that due to this failure, she could not reach him before he died and sought compensation for mental anguish and suffering caused by their negligence. The court held that under common law principles applicable at both locations (Texas where message was sent & North Carolina where it should have been received), there is no liability for mental anguish suffered as a result of negligent delay or failure to deliver a telegram unless physical injury has also occurred - which wasn't present here. Therefore, even though Western Union had breached its duty by failing to promptly transmit and deliver Mr.Speight's message, it couldn't be held liable solely based on emotional distress caused without any accompanying physical harm.

In the dissenting opinion for Western Union Telegraph Company v. Speight, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles. He disagreed with their interpretation of liability in this case, stating that it should not be based on whether or not a third party had knowledge of a contract between two other parties. Instead, he believed that liability should depend on whether harm was foreseeable to the defendant at the time they committed an act leading to damages. In his view, Western Union could reasonably foresee potential harm caused by its failure to deliver a telegram promptly and accurately as per its contractual obligation; therefore, it should be held liable for any resulting damage regardless of who suffered from it - even if they were unaware of such contract’s existence.