Clinton v. Missouri Pacific Railway was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the Missouri Pacific Railway and the town of Clinton, Missouri. The town had granted the railway a right-of-way through the town, but the railway had failed to build the tracks as promised. The town sued the railway for breach of contract, and the railway argued that the contract was void because it had not been approved by the state legislature. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the state legislature had no authority to interfere with the contract between the town and the railway. The Court also held that the railway was liable for damages for its failure to build the tracks as promised. The Court noted that the railway had received a benefit from the contract, and it was therefore obligated to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The decision in Clinton v. Missouri Pacific Railway established that contracts between municipalities and private entities are valid and enforceable, even if they are not approved by the state legislature. The decision also established that private entities are liable for damages if they fail to fulfill their obligations under a contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Clinton v. Missouri Pacific Railway, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would have a negative effect on commerce. He argued that Congress had not intended for railroads to be held liable for damages caused by their negligence when they were acting as common carriers of goods or passengers. Furthermore, he noted that if such liability were imposed, it could lead to an increase in insurance premiums and other costs associated with operating a railroad business. Additionally, Justice Field pointed out that prior cases had established the principle of limited liability for railroads under certain circumstances; thus, imposing full liability without regard to fault would be inconsistent with those decisions and create uncertainty within the industry. Finally, he concluded his dissent by noting that while safety should always be paramount when dealing with transportation matters involving public welfare, this case did not involve any issue related to public safety but rather one concerning private property rights which should remain unaffected by judicial action unless specifically authorized by Congress or state legislatures.