Central Railroad and Banking Company v. Georgia was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1875. The case involved the constitutionality of a Georgia tax imposed on the Central Railroad and Banking Company of Georgia. The company argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court held that the tax was constitutional because it did not impair the obligation of the contract between the company and the state. The Court reasoned that the tax was not a penalty for breach of contract, but rather a legitimate exercise of the state's power to tax. The Court also held that the tax was not a violation of the Contract Clause because it did not interfere with the company's ability to fulfill its contractual obligations. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a state may impose taxes on private companies without violating the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the constitutionality of state taxes.

In Central Railroad and Banking Company v. Georgia, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could tax a federally chartered corporation without violating the Constitution. The majority opinion held that states had broad authority to impose taxes on federal corporations as long as they did not interfere with Congress’s power over interstate commerce or its ability to regulate foreign and domestic commerce. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that it violated both the letter and spirit of the Constitution by allowing states too much control over federal entities. He argued that while states have some power to tax these entities, such taxation should be limited in scope so as not to impede upon Congress's exclusive powers under Article I of the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that if each state were allowed unfettered discretion in taxing federal corporations then it would lead to an unequal burden being placed on them which would ultimately disrupt their operations across different jurisdictions - something which is expressly prohibited by Article IV of the Constitution.