In Bosworth v. St. Louis Terminal Railroad Association, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and railroad construction in 1898. The plaintiff, Bosworth, owned land that was taken by the defendant, St. Louis Terminal Railroad Association for railway purposes without his consent or any legal proceedings to determine compensation for him as required by Missouri law at that time. He sued them seeking damages for trespassing on his property and removing earth from it during their construction work which he claimed had caused significant damage to its value. The court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that they were protected under an act of Congress which granted them certain privileges including taking private lands necessary for constructing railroads after just compensation has been made or secured to be paid to owners who do not willingly sell their properties needed for such purpose. However, since no evidence was presented showing whether just compensation had been made or secured before taking possession of Bosworth's land and using it as alleged by him; this issue along with determining amount of damages if any due to him were remanded back down to lower courts where these matters could be properly addressed based on facts presented there.

In the dissenting opinion for Bosworth v. St. Louis Terminal Railroad Association, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and violated principles of federalism by allowing a state to interfere in interstate commerce. He contended that under Missouri law, it was clear that Mr. Bosworth had a right to recover damages from his employer for injuries sustained while working on an interstate train due to negligence or fault of another employee. However, he believed this case should not have been decided based on state law but rather federal laws regulating interstate commerce which supersede any conflicting state regulations according to the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. In his view, denying recovery in such cases would discourage employees from engaging in hazardous work necessary for maintaining vital transportation services across states lines thereby disrupting smooth functioning of national economy.