This US Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the Cedar Rapids & Missouri River Railroad Company and another, and a man named Herring. The railroad company had been granted a right of way by the state of Iowa, and Herring had been granted a right of way by the same state. The railroad company argued that Herring's right of way interfered with their own, and that they should be granted an injunction to prevent Herring from using his right of way. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company, finding that Herring's right of way did indeed interfere with the railroad company's right of way, and that the railroad company was entitled to an injunction. The Court also held that the state of Iowa had no authority to grant a right of way that would interfere with the rights of another. This case established the principle that the state cannot grant a right of way that would interfere with the rights of another.

In the case of Cedar Rapids & Missouri River Railroad Company and Another v. Herring, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of an Iowa state statute regarding railroad companies' liability for damages caused by negligence. He noted that while it was true that the statute did not explicitly provide for such liability, its language implied as much when read together with other statutes governing railroads and their operations. Furthermore, he asserted that if the legislature had intended to exempt railroads from this type of responsibility they would have done so more clearly than what was provided in this particular law. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that there should be no doubt about whether or not railroad companies were liable for damages resulting from negligent acts committed by them or their employees; thus, he dissented from the majority's ruling on this matter.