This case was a dispute between the City of Hoboken and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The City of Hoboken had granted the Pennsylvania Railroad Company a franchise to build a railroad in the city. The franchise agreement included a provision that the railroad company would pay the city a certain amount of money each year. The railroad company failed to make the payments, and the City of Hoboken sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the City of Hoboken was entitled to the payments that were due under the franchise agreement. The Court found that the franchise agreement was a valid contract and that the railroad company had breached its obligations under the agreement. The Court also held that the City of Hoboken was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court ordered the railroad company to pay the City of Hoboken the amount of money that was due under the franchise agreement.

In the case of Hoboken v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a dispute between two corporations incorporated in different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and that the matter should be decided by federal courts instead. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has given state courts concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts in cases involving citizens of different states; thus, he believed there was no reason why state courts could not hear disputes between two corporations incorporated in different states as well. Furthermore, he noted that if only federal courts were allowed to hear such matters then it would create an unnecessary burden for litigants who may need to travel long distances or incur other costs associated with bringing their claims before a distant court rather than one closer at hand. Finally, Justice Field pointed out that allowing both state and federal jurisdictions would help ensure uniformity among decisions since each forum can provide its own unique perspective on similar issues while still adhering to established legal principles across all forums