In the case of Wilson v. Haley Live Stock Company (1893), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a livestock company could be held liable for damages caused by its cattle wandering onto another person's property. The plaintiff, Wilson, alleged that his crops were damaged when the defendant’s cattle trespassed on his land and sought compensation for this damage. However, he had not fenced off his property to prevent such an occurrence from happening. The court ruled in favor of Haley Livestock Company stating that it was not responsible for any damage done as there were no laws or regulations requiring them to fence their animals in at all times nor did they intentionally let their livestock wander onto Wilson's property causing harm or destruction.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Wilson v. Haley Live Stock Company argued that the majority's decision was not consistent with established legal principles and precedent. The dissenting justices believed that a contract, once made, should be binding and enforceable unless there is clear evidence of fraud or coercion. They felt that the court had overstepped its bounds by intervening in what they saw as a private contractual matter between two parties. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain key facts in the case, arguing instead for an alternative reading which would have led to a different outcome. In their view, this misinterpretation resulted in an unjust ruling against Wilson who was held liable for damages he did not cause according to his agreement with Haley Live Stock Company.