This case was a dispute between the Green Bay and Minnesota Railroad Company and the Union Steamboat Company. The Railroad Company sued the Steamboat Company for damages caused by the Steamboat Company's negligence. The Railroad Company alleged that the Steamboat Company had negligently caused a collision between two of its vessels, resulting in the destruction of the Railroad Company's bridge. The Supreme Court held that the Railroad Company was entitled to recover damages from the Steamboat Company. The Court found that the Steamboat Company had been negligent in the operation of its vessels, and that the Railroad Company had suffered damages as a result. The Court also held that the Railroad Company was entitled to recover the cost of repairing the bridge, as well as the loss of profits resulting from the interruption of its business. The Court also held that the Railroad Company was entitled to recover punitive damages from the Steamboat Company. The Court found that the Steamboat Company had acted with a reckless disregard for the safety of the Railroad Company's property, and that the Railroad Company was entitled to recover punitive damages in order to deter similar conduct in the future.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Green Bay and Minnesota Railroad Company v. Union Steamboat Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. He argued that a contract should be interpreted according to its plain language, not by what one party may have intended or expected from it. The dissent noted that while there is an implied obligation of good faith in contracts, this does not mean parties can ignore their express terms when they are clear and unambiguous. Furthermore, he argued that if a court were to interpret contracts based on subjective intent rather than objective meaning then no contract would ever be certain as each side could always argue for different interpretations of its terms depending on their own interests at any given time. In conclusion Justice Field stated his belief that courts should adhere strictly to the language used in contracts without attempting to divine what either party may have meant or intended beyond what is written down explicitly within them.