This case was a dispute between the Barney and Others and the Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company. The Barney and Others were a group of farmers who owned land adjacent to the railroad tracks. The Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company had been granted a charter by the state of Minnesota to construct a railroad line through the farmers' land. The farmers argued that the charter was unconstitutional because it allowed the railroad to take their land without providing them with just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the farmers, holding that the charter was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the charter violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Court held that the charter was an unconstitutional taking of the farmers' land without providing them with just compensation. The Court also held that the state of Minnesota had no authority to grant the charter in the first place, as it was in violation of the Constitution. The Court's ruling in this case established the principle that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of constitutional law today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Barney & Others v. Winona & St. Peter Rail Road Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result for the plaintiffs. He argued that under prior decisions of this Court, a railroad company is liable for damages caused by its negligence regardless of whether it had actual knowledge or notice of any defect in its roadbed or track structure before an accident occurred. Furthermore, he noted that while contributory negligence on behalf of a plaintiff may be taken into account when assessing damages, such negligence does not absolve a defendant from liability altogether unless it can be shown that the plaintiff’s own conduct was so reckless as to amount to “wanton disregard” for their safety. In this case, Justice Field found no evidence suggesting such recklessness on behalf of any party involved and thus concluded that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of the plaintiffs instead.