This case was a dispute between the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company and the Wiggins Ferry Company. The Chicago and Alton Railroad Company had a bridge over the Mississippi River, and the Wiggins Ferry Company had a ferry service that ran across the same river. The Chicago and Alton Railroad Company argued that the Wiggins Ferry Company was operating in violation of the charter granted to the railroad company by the state of Illinois. The railroad company argued that the ferry service was in direct competition with the bridge and was thus in violation of the charter. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Wiggins Ferry Company. The Court held that the charter granted to the railroad company did not give it exclusive rights to the river, and that the ferry service was not in direct competition with the bridge. The Court also held that the charter did not give the railroad company the right to prevent the ferry service from operating. The Court concluded that the charter granted to the railroad company did not give it the right to prevent the Wiggins Ferry Company from operating its ferry service.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Chicago and Alton Railroad v. Wiggins Ferry Company, arguing that the majority had misconstrued a contract between two parties. The contract stated that if either party failed to fulfill their obligations under it, then they would be liable for damages caused by such failure. In this case, Justice Field argued that the ferry company was not liable for any damage done to the railroad's property because there was no evidence of negligence on its part; rather, he believed that any damage done was due solely to natural causes beyond its control. He further contended that even if there were some degree of fault on behalf of the ferry company, it should only be held responsible for those damages which could have been avoided with reasonable care and diligence - something which he felt had not been established in this case. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that since neither party had breached their contractual obligations or acted negligently towards one another’s property rights, both should bear equal responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of natural forces beyond their control