In the case of Wright et al. v. Central Kentucky Natural Gas Co. et al., 1935, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Central Kentucky Natural Gas Company (CKNGC). The plaintiffs, landowners from whom CKNGC had leased mineral rights to extract natural gas, argued that their lease agreement required CKNGC to pay royalties on all gas extracted from beneath their property - including any subsequently lost or wasted due to negligence during transportation and distribution processes after extraction. However, the court held that under common law principles applicable at the time when these leases were executed (between 1906-1910), a lessee was not liable for waste occurring post-extraction unless explicitly stated in contract terms; thus rejecting plaintiffs' claim for additional royalty payments based on alleged wastage by CKNGC after extraction but before sale.

In the dissenting opinion for Wright et al. v. Central Kentucky Natural Gas Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a contract between a gas company and its customers was an overreach of judicial power. He contended that it is not within the purview of courts to determine whether or not contracts are fair, but rather their role is simply to enforce them as they stand unless there is clear evidence of fraud, mistake, duress or illegality involved in their formation. Furthermore, he pointed out that both parties had entered into this agreement willingly and with full knowledge of its terms; therefore any perceived unfairness should be addressed through legislative action rather than judicial intervention. In his view, by stepping outside these boundaries set forth by precedent and tradition, the court risked undermining public confidence in contractual agreements which could have far-reaching economic consequences.