This case involved a dispute between the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company and the Trustees of the Sixth Presbyterian Church. The railroad company had been granted a right-of-way by the state of Maryland to construct a railroad line through the city of Baltimore. The church owned a parcel of land that was in the path of the proposed railroad line. The church argued that the railroad company had no right to construct the line through their property, and that the state had no authority to grant the right-of-way. The Supreme Court held that the state had the authority to grant the right-of-way, and that the railroad company had the right to construct the line through the church's property. The Court reasoned that the state had the power to grant the right-of-way, and that the church had no right to prevent the railroad from exercising its right. The Court also held that the church was not entitled to any compensation for the taking of its property, as the taking was for a public purpose. The Court concluded that the railroad company had the right to construct the line through the church's property.

In the case of Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company v. Trustees of Sixth Presbyterian Church, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of Maryland law. He noted that under Maryland law, when land is sold to a railroad company for public use, it cannot be used for any other purpose without express permission from the state legislature. In this case, there had been no such permission granted by the state legislature; thus, according to Justice Field's reading of Maryland law, it was illegal for the railroad company to build its tracks over property owned by Sixth Presbyterian Church. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some ambiguity in how one should interpret Maryland law regarding this issue - as suggested by his colleagues - then they should have deferred their judgment until after consulting with experts who could provide more clarity on what exactly constituted "public use" under said laws. Ultimately though, Justice Field concluded that since no such consultation had taken place and because he believed his own interpretation of applicable laws was correct anyway; therefore he dissented from the majority opinion and voted against granting summary judgment in favor of Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Co..