In the case of Farnsworth et al., Trustees v. Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company had the right to take possession of certain lands that had been granted to the railroad by the United States government. The Trustees of the Farnsworth estate had purchased the lands from the government and argued that the railroad had no right to take possession of the lands. The Supreme Court held that the railroad had the right to take possession of the lands, as the government had granted the railroad the right to do so. The Court noted that the government had the power to grant the railroad the right to take possession of the lands, and that the Trustees had no right to interfere with the government's decision. The Court also noted that the Trustees had not taken any action to protect their rights to the lands, and thus had no legal basis to challenge the railroad's right to take possession of the lands. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company had the right to take possession of the lands granted to it by the United States government, and that the Trustees of the Farnsworth estate had no legal basis to challenge the railroad's right to do so.

In the case of Farnsworth et al., Trustees v. Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company et al., the dissenting opinion was that a state statute could not be used to take away vested rights from individuals, even if it is done in order to benefit the public good. The majority opinion held that since Congress had granted land grants for railroad construction, those lands were subject to any laws passed by states related to taxation or other regulation. However, Justice Field argued that such an interpretation would allow states too much power over private property rights and thus violate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. He further argued that while there may have been some ambiguity in how Congress intended its grant of land should be interpreted, this did not give states carte blanche authority over all private property within their borders; instead they must respect existing contracts between parties as well as individual's constitutional right against deprivation without due process of law.