In Dunham v. The Cincinnati, Peru, &C., Railway Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an interstate railway company. At issue was whether or not Congress had preempted state courts from hearing such cases by passing legislation that gave exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts in matters concerning interstate commerce. The Supreme Court held that while Congress did have authority to regulate interstate commerce and could pass laws granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts for certain matters related thereto, it had not done so in this particular instance and thus the state court retained its original jurisdiction over the case at hand. As such, they affirmed the decision of lower court which found that it did indeed have proper authority over this matter as there were no applicable statutes preventing them from doing so.

In the case of Dunham v. The Cincinnati, Peru, &C., Railway Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider an important point: whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to damages for his injuries due to negligence on behalf of the defendant. He noted that under common law principles and prior decisions from other courts it was established that when one party is injured by another's negligence they are entitled to recover damages for their losses. In this particular case, he felt there were sufficient facts presented which demonstrated that the defendant had been negligent and thus should be liable for any harm caused as a result. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since no evidence existed showing otherwise then it would have been appropriate for the court to award damages in favor of Mr. Dunham instead of dismissing his claim outright without consideration given towards its merits or lack thereof.