Albany and Rensselaer Company v. Lundberg was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enjoin a railroad company from operating its trains on a particular track. The plaintiff, Lundberg, owned a piece of land that was adjacent to a railroad track owned by the defendant, Albany and Rensselaer Company. Lundberg argued that the railroad company was operating its trains on the track in a manner that was causing a nuisance to his property. He sought an injunction from the state court to prevent the railroad company from operating its trains on the track. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to enjoin the railroad company from operating its trains on the track. The Court reasoned that the power to regulate the operation of railroads was a matter of federal law, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court also noted that the state court's injunction would have interfered with the railroad company's right to use its property in a reasonable manner. The Court's decision in this case established that the federal government has exclusive authority to regulate interstate commerce, and that state courts cannot interfere with this authority. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the regulation of interstate commerce.

In Albany and Rensselaer Company v. Lundberg, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by either party against the other. The majority opinion held that since only one of the parties had fulfilled their obligations under the contract, neither party was entitled to any relief from it. Justice Field dissented from this opinion on several grounds. He argued that when a contract has been partly performed by both sides, each should be able to enforce its terms against the other in order to prevent unjust enrichment or detriment caused by non-performance of contractual duties. Furthermore, he noted that if contracts were not enforced even after partial performance then people would have no incentive to fulfill them at all as they would know there is no legal recourse for breach of agreement once some part of it has already been completed. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that courts should recognize and enforce contracts where possible in order to protect individuals who have acted in good faith and upheld their end of an agreement despite being unable to receive anything back for doing so due to another's failure or refusal