In Jacksonville, Pensacola and Mobile Railroad Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to take possession of a railroad owned by the company. The company argued that the United States had no right to take possession of the railroad without just compensation, as required by the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to take possession of the railroad without just compensation. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment only applies to private property, and the railroad was owned by a corporation, not an individual. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment did not apply and the United States was not required to provide just compensation. The Court also held that the United States had the right to take possession of the railroad in order to protect the public interest. The Court reasoned that the United States had the right to take possession of the railroad in order to ensure that the public was not harmed by the railroad's operations. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to take possession of the railroad without just compensation, as the Fifth Amendment only applies to private property. The Court also held that the United States had the right to take possession of the railroad in order to protect the public interest.

In Jacksonville, Pensacola and Mobile Railroad Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to properly maintain its tracks. The majority opinion found that the railroad company could not be held liable because it had acted within reasonable care and diligence in maintaining its tracks. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that there is no reason why a corporation should not be responsible for injuries resulting from their own negligence or wrongful acts just as any other person would have been under similar circumstances. He argued that corporations are created with certain privileges but also come with corresponding duties which must be fulfilled if they wish to enjoy those privileges; thus, he concluded that corporations should bear responsibility when their negligent actions cause harm to others.