This case was a dispute between the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company and the Iowa Homestead Company. The Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company had been granted a right-of-way by the state of Iowa to construct a railroad across the Iowa Homestead Company's land. The Iowa Homestead Company argued that the right-of-way was invalid because it had not been granted in accordance with the state's laws. The Supreme Court held that the right-of-way was valid and that the Iowa Homestead Company had no right to challenge it. The Court reasoned that the right-of-way was granted in accordance with the state's laws and that the Iowa Homestead Company had no standing to challenge it. The Court also held that the right-of-way was a valid exercise of the state's police power and that the Iowa Homestead Company had no right to interfere with it. The Court concluded that the right-of-way was valid and that the Iowa Homestead Company had no right to challenge it.

In Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company v. Iowa Homestead Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company had the right to take possession of land owned by another party for its own use without paying compensation. The majority opinion held that it did not have such a right under existing law; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that while there is no express authority in the Constitution or statutes allowing railroads to take private property for their own use without payment of just compensation, they should be allowed to do so as an implied power necessary for them to fulfill their public purpose and benefit society at large. Furthermore, he asserted that if railroads were denied this power then they would be unable to build lines across states which could impede interstate commerce and thus violate Congress’s constitutional powers over interstate commerce. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that railroads should be able to acquire land through eminent domain even though there was no explicit legal basis allowing them do so because it served a greater public good than simply compensating landowners who stood in their way