In Howard v. Railway Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a railway company was liable for damages caused by a collision between two of its trains. The plaintiff, Howard, was a passenger on one of the trains and was injured in the collision. The Court held that the railway company was liable for the damages caused by the collision. The Court reasoned that the railway company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains, and that it had breached this duty by failing to take proper precautions to prevent the collision. The Court also held that the railway company was liable for the damages caused by the collision even though it had not been negligent in the operation of its trains. The Court's decision established that railway companies are liable for damages caused by collisions between their trains, even if they have not been negligent in the operation of their trains. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving railway companies and their liability for damages caused by collisions.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Howard v. Railway Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is fair or not. In this case, he noted that the railway company had agreed to transport goods for a certain price and had fulfilled their obligation by doing so; thus they were entitled to payment at the rate specified in their agreement with Howard. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there had been an error on behalf of either party regarding what was agreed upon initially, such errors could only be corrected through mutual consent or legal action - neither of which occurred here - rather than through judicial fiat as proposed by the majority opinion. As such, he concluded his dissent by stating his belief that "the court has no right" to interfere with contracts made between private individuals unless there is clear evidence of fraud or illegality involved in making them