The Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company brought a case against Alexander Nesbit and Penelope D. Goodwin, claiming that they had unlawfully taken possession of certain railroad property belonging to the company. The defendants argued that the land in question was part of their own estate, which had been granted by an act of Maryland legislature prior to the establishment of the railroad company. The Supreme Court held that while it is true that private rights may be affected by public acts, such as those passed by legislatures or Congress, this does not mean those rights are necessarily extinguished; rather they must be respected unless there is clear evidence showing otherwise. In this case, no such evidence existed and thus Nesbit's and Goodwin's title to their land remained valid despite its proximity to railway property owned by the plaintiff.

In the dissenting opinion of The Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company v. Alexander Nesbit and Penelope D. Goodwin, Justice Catron argued that the majority’s decision was not in line with established legal precedent or common law principles. He contended that a railroad company should be held liable for damages caused by its negligence, regardless of whether it had been warned about potential dangers beforehand. Furthermore, he argued that the plaintiff's failure to take reasonable precautions did not absolve them from liability; rather, they were still responsible for any harm caused as a result of their negligence. Finally, Justice Catron asserted that if companies are allowed to escape responsibility simply because they have been warned about potential hazards then this would create an unjust situation where those who suffer losses due to another party’s carelessness cannot seek redress through civil courts.