This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the Grand Trunk Railroad Company and Richardson et al. over the ownership of a piece of land in Michigan. The Grand Trunk Railroad Company claimed that they had purchased the land from the United States government in 1852, and that they had been in possession of the land since then. Richardson et al. argued that they had purchased the land from the original owner in 1854, and that they had been in possession of the land since then. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Grand Trunk Railroad Company, finding that the company had acquired the land from the United States government in 1852 and had been in possession of the land since then. The Court held that the company had acquired a valid title to the land, and that Richardson et al. had no right to the land. The Court also held that the company had a right to the possession of the land, and that Richardson et al. had no right to the possession of the land.

In the case of Grand Trunk Railroad Company v. Richardson et al., Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider an important point of law. He contended that under Michigan state law, a railroad company was not liable for injuries caused by its employees unless it could be proven that they were acting with malice or negligence on behalf of the company itself. In this particular case, there was no evidence presented to suggest either malice or negligence on behalf of Grand Trunk Railroad Company and thus, according to Justice Field's interpretation of Michigan state law, they should not have been held liable for damages resulting from their employee's actions. Furthermore, he argued that even if such proof did exist against them then it would still be up to the jury - rather than the court - to decide whether or not liability should attach in this instance as per established legal precedent at both federal and state levels. Ultimately however his dissent went unheeded and so Grand Trunk Railroad Company remained responsible for any damages incurred due to their employee’s actions regardless of intent or lack thereof.