Healy and Another v. Joliet & Chicago Railroad Company and Another was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1885. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Healy and another, and the defendants, Joliet & Chicago Railroad Company and another, over the ownership of a piece of land. The plaintiffs argued that they had acquired the land through a deed from the original owner, while the defendants argued that they had acquired the land through a tax sale. The Supreme Court held that the deed from the original owner was valid and that the defendants had not acquired the land through a tax sale. The Court found that the deed was valid because it was properly executed and delivered, and that the defendants had not acquired the land through a tax sale because the tax sale was not valid. The Court also held that the defendants had not acquired the land through adverse possession, as they had not been in possession of the land for the required period of time. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the land and that the defendants had no right to the land. The Court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the amount of money they had paid for the land, plus interest.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Healy & Another v. Joliet & Chicago Railroad Company & Another, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. The case concerned a dispute over whether or not a railroad company had violated its charter by entering into an agreement with another corporation for exclusive use of certain tracks. Justice Field argued that while it is true that corporations are generally limited to those powers expressly granted them by their charters, this limitation does not extend so far as to prevent them from making contracts which may be beneficial for their business operations and interests. Furthermore, he noted that such agreements were common practice among railroads at the time and should therefore be allowed under corporate law principles unless they can be shown to have been made in bad faith or beyond the scope of what is necessary for carrying out legitimate corporate objectives. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that there was no evidence presented in this case which would justify overturning established precedent on these matters and thus allowing the lower court's ruling against the railroad company to stand without further review or consideration.