Bell v. Railroad Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1866. The case involved a dispute between a railroad company and a landowner, Bell, over the right of way of a railroad. Bell had granted the railroad company a right of way across his land, but the company had failed to build the railroad within the time frame specified in the agreement. Bell then attempted to revoke the right of way, but the railroad company argued that the right of way was irrevocable. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company, finding that the right of way was irrevocable. The Court held that the right of way was a contract between the parties, and that the terms of the contract could not be changed without the consent of both parties. The Court also held that the railroad company had acted in good faith in attempting to build the railroad, and that Bell had no right to revoke the right of way. The Court thus affirmed the irrevocability of the right of way.

In the case of Bell v. Railroad Company, Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal law. He noted that Congress had passed legislation granting railroads certain rights and privileges, including the right to build tracks across public lands without paying compensation for them. The majority opinion held that this statute did not apply to private property owned by individuals such as Mr. Bell; however, Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and argued instead that it should be interpreted broadly so as to include all land within its scope regardless of ownership status. Furthermore, he asserted that if Congress intended for these statutes only to apply to public lands then they would have explicitly stated so in their language or provided some other indication thereof. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing against allowing states' laws regarding eminent domain take precedence over federal laws when there is no clear indication from either source about how a particular situation should be handled legally speaking