This case was a dispute between the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad Company (ETV&G) and the Southern Telegraph Company (STC). ETV&G argued that STC had violated the terms of a contract between the two companies by failing to provide telegraph services to ETV&G. The contract stated that STC would provide telegraph services to ETV&G at a reduced rate. The Supreme Court held that STC had breached the contract by failing to provide the services at the reduced rate. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that STC had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The Court also held that ETV&G was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court also held that ETV&G was entitled to an injunction against STC, which would prevent STC from providing telegraph services to any other railroad company until it had fulfilled its obligations to ETV&G. This injunction was necessary to ensure that ETV&G would not be disadvantaged by STC's breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that STC had breached its contract with ETV&G and that ETV&G was entitled to damages and an injunction against STC.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad Co. v. Southern Telegraph Company. He argued that Congress had not given any power to the Supreme Court to review state court decisions on questions of federal law and therefore it was improper for the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction over this case which involved a question of federal law decided by a state court. Justice Field further noted that even if Congress had granted such authority, he believed it would be unwise for the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion in reviewing cases involving questions of both state and federal laws because doing so could lead to confusion between different courts as well as create conflict between them due to their differing interpretations of applicable laws. Finally, Justice Field concluded that since there were no constitutional issues at stake here, it was unnecessary for the Supreme Court's intervention and thus should have declined jurisdiction over this case altogether.