Edmund Rice brought a case against the Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company in which he alleged that they had taken possession of his land without providing him with just compensation. Rice argued that this was an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment, as it deprived him of his property without due process. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that while the railroad company did take possession of Rice's land for its own use, it did not do so in violation of any constitutional provision because there was no evidence to suggest that the company acted maliciously or arbitrarily when doing so. Furthermore, since state law allowed companies to acquire private lands for public use if just compensation is provided, and since there was no proof otherwise presented by Rice regarding how much he should have been compensated for his property rights being taken away from him by the railroad company’s actions; thus making their action legal according to both federal and state laws at hand.

In Edmund Rice v. The Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. Justice Grier delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that such cases should be heard in federal courts instead of state courts because they involve parties from different states and thus come under the purview of Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution which grants original jurisdiction to federal courts in all cases where one party is from another state. He argued that this clause gives exclusive power to Congress to determine how these types of disputes are handled and therefore it would be unconstitutional for any other court or tribunal outside Congress’s authority to hear them. Furthermore, he noted that if state courts were allowed to handle such matters then there could potentially be conflicting decisions on similar issues depending on what particular court hears each case since laws vary by location; this could lead to confusion among litigants as well as create problems with enforcing judgments across jurisdictions.