In Cowdrey et al. v. Galveston, Houston, and Henderson Railroad Company et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a train accident. The plaintiffs, Cowdrey and others, were passengers on a train operated by the defendant railroad company. The train derailed, causing the plaintiffs to suffer injuries. The plaintiffs argued that the railroad company was liable for their injuries because the company had failed to exercise reasonable care in the operation of the train. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the plaintiffs' injuries. The Court found that the railroad company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains, and that it had breached this duty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for their injuries. The Court noted that the railroad company had a duty to provide a safe and comfortable ride for its passengers, and that it had failed to do so. The Court concluded that the railroad company was liable for the plaintiffs' injuries and awarded them damages.

In Cowdrey et al. v. Galveston, Houston, and Henderson Railroad Company et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to provide proper fencing along its tracks that resulted in an injury to a cow owned by the plaintiffs. Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion of three justices who argued that under Texas law at the time, railroads were not required to fence their lines and thus should not be held responsible for any injuries resulting from their failure do so. The dissenters further argued that even if there had been such a requirement, it would have been impossible for them as federal judges sitting on appeal from state courts to determine what kind of fencing would have constituted reasonable care or how much damage should be awarded in this case since those matters are best left up to local authorities familiar with local conditions and customs. Ultimately they concluded that while they sympathized with plaintiff's plight due to his loss of property, he did not present sufficient evidence showing negligence on behalf of defendant railroad company which warranted liability being imposed upon them