Central Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia v. Pettus & Others was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a railroad company. The case arose when the Central Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia was sued by a group of individuals who claimed that the company had failed to pay them for services rendered. The individuals sought an injunction from the state court to prevent the company from operating until the debt was paid. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the injunction. The Court reasoned that the power to regulate railroads was vested in the federal government, and that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the company's operations. The Court also noted that the company had not been given notice of the lawsuit, and that the injunction was issued without giving the company an opportunity to be heard. The Court concluded that the state court had exceeded its authority in issuing the injunction, and that the company was entitled to an injunction against the individuals who had sued it. The Court also held that the company was entitled to damages for the losses it had suffered as a result of the injunction.

In Central Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia v. Pettus & Others, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to provide adequate fencing along its tracks. The majority opinion found that the railroad company had no duty to fence their tracks and thus could not be held liable for any resulting injuries or deaths from people trespassing on them. Justice Field dissented, arguing that it was within the power of state legislatures to impose such a duty on railroads and that they should do so in order to protect public safety. He argued further that if states failed to act then Congress should step in and pass legislation requiring railroads to build fences around their tracks as an exercise of its police powers over interstate commerce. In conclusion, Justice Field believed there were sufficient legal grounds upon which liability could have been imposed against the railroad company but instead chose not too due largely because of outdated common law principles which he felt needed updating through legislative action at either state or federal level.