This case was a dispute between the East Alabama Railway Company and Doe ex dem. Visscher. The Railway Company had been granted a right of way by the state of Alabama, and Visscher had been granted a right of way by the same state. The Railway Company argued that Visscher's right of way interfered with their own, and that Visscher had no right to use the land in question. The Supreme Court held that Visscher had a valid right of way, and that the Railway Company had no right to interfere with it. The Court found that the state of Alabama had granted Visscher a valid right of way, and that the Railway Company had no right to interfere with it. The Court also held that the Railway Company had no right to use the land in question, as it was not part of their right of way. The Court concluded that Visscher had a valid right of way, and that the Railway Company had no right to interfere with it.

In East Alabama Railway Company v. Doe ex dem. Visscher, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to properly maintain its tracks and equipment. The majority opinion found that the railroad company was not liable because it had acted with reasonable care and diligence in maintaining its tracks and equipment, thus absolving them of any liability for damages resulting from their negligence. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that under common law principles of tort liability, a party can be held responsible for injuries or damage caused by their negligent acts regardless of how much care they took in preventing such harm. He argued that if an individual is injured due to another's careless actions then they should have recourse against those who are at fault without having to prove specific intent or malice on behalf of the wrongdoer; otherwise individuals would lack adequate protection against potential harms inflicted upon them through no fault of their own.