Hoge v. Railroad Company was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a fire that was started by sparks from the company's locomotive. The plaintiff, Hoge, owned a farm that was located near the railroad tracks and his property was damaged by the fire. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the fire. The Court reasoned that the company had a duty to use reasonable care to prevent sparks from its locomotive from setting fire to the plaintiff's property. The Court noted that the company had failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the fire, such as providing a spark arrester on the locomotive, and thus was liable for the damages caused by the fire. The Court also held that the plaintiff was not required to prove that the company was negligent in order to recover damages. The Court reasoned that the company had a duty to use reasonable care to prevent the fire, and thus was liable for the damages regardless of whether it was negligent or not.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hoge v. Railroad Company, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding upon them both, and cannot be altered or amended by either party without mutual consent. In this case, he believed that when Hoge purchased his ticket from the railroad company for a certain price with no expiration date stated on it, there was an implied agreement between him and the company to honor it indefinitely until such time as they mutually agreed to alter its terms. The fact that Hoge had not used his ticket did not change this agreement; rather than allowing him to use it at any point in time thereafter, Justice Field felt that doing so would constitute unjust enrichment of one party over another - something which should never occur under contract law principles. Therefore, he concluded by stating his belief that if Hoge had been allowed to use his ticket after all these years without paying anything additional for it then justice would have been served more appropriately than what occurred here today with the majority's ruling against him