This case involved a dispute between the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad (ETV&G) and a man named Grayson. Grayson had purchased a parcel of land from the railroad in 1877, and the deed included a clause that the railroad would not build a competing line within three miles of the land. In 1881, the railroad began constructing a line within three miles of the land, and Grayson sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the railroad had breached the contract, and that Grayson was entitled to damages. The Court reasoned that the railroad had agreed to the clause in the deed, and that it was binding on both parties. The Court also noted that the railroad had not provided any evidence that the clause was invalid or unenforceable. The Court also held that Grayson was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court reasoned that Grayson had suffered a loss of value in his land due to the railroad's construction of the competing line, and that he was entitled to compensation for that loss. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the railroad had breached the contract with Grayson, and that Grayson was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court found that the clause in the deed was binding on both parties, and that Grayson had suffered a loss of value in his land due to the railroad's construction of the competing line.

In East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad v. Grayson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company had to pay damages for injuries sustained by an employee while working on its property. The majority opinion held that the railroad was liable and awarded damages to the plaintiff. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that there were no facts in evidence showing negligence or fault on behalf of the defendant which would have caused injury to the plaintiff. He further argued that under common law principles of contributory negligence, it could not be said that any act or omission by either party contributed to cause such injury; thus making it impossible for liability to attach against one party without proof of fault or negligence being established first. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded that since no such proof existed in this case then judgment should be entered in favor of defendant as a matter of law and not based upon speculation alone.