The Supreme Court case of Wise & Lynn v. The Columbian Turnpike Company was a dispute over the right to use a turnpike road in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs, Wise and Lynn, argued that they had an exclusive right to use the road as part of their contract with the defendant company. However, the defendant claimed that it had no obligation under its charter from Pennsylvania's legislature to provide such rights exclusively for any one party or group of people. After considering both sides' arguments, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of the defendants on grounds that there was no evidence presented by either side which showed any contractual agreement between them regarding exclusive access rights for Wise and Lynn. Ultimately, this decision established precedent which held that companies chartered by state legislatures have broad authority when it comes to determining who can use their roads and how much they must pay for doing so.

In the dissenting opinion for Wise & Lynn v. The Columbian Turnpike Company, Chief Justice Marshall argued that the Court should not have granted a writ of error in this case because it was an action of assumpsit and did not involve any federal questions. He further stated that even if there were some federal question involved, it would be improper to grant a writ of error since the parties had already agreed on their rights before entering into litigation. Furthermore, he noted that granting such a writ could lead to unnecessary delays in resolving cases and create confusion among litigants who may think they can appeal decisions without first obtaining permission from Congress or other appropriate authorities. Finally, he concluded by expressing his belief that allowing appeals in cases like these would undermine judicial authority as well as public confidence in courts’ ability to decide matters fairly and impartially.