James et al. v. Railroad Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1867. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, James et al., and the defendant, a railroad company. The plaintiffs had purchased a parcel of land from the railroad company, and the deed included a clause that the railroad company would not build a railroad within a certain distance of the property. The railroad company subsequently built a railroad within the distance specified in the deed, and the plaintiffs sued for damages. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for damages, as the deed was a contract between the parties and the railroad company had breached the terms of the contract. The Court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the diminution in value of their property due to the railroad's construction. The Court further held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the nuisance caused by the railroad's construction, as the railroad had interfered with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for damages for breaching the terms of the contract and for the nuisance caused by the railroad's construction. The Court awarded the plaintiffs damages for the diminution in value of their property and for the nuisance caused by the railroad's construction.

In James et al. v. Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that allowed railroad companies to take private property for public use without providing compensation violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this amendment because it was an exercise of police power by a state government and thus beyond federal control. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that while states have broad powers over their own internal affairs, they cannot pass laws which conflict with or impair rights granted under the US Constitution such as those found in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause which requires just compensation when private property is taken for public use. He further argued that if states are allowed to pass laws like this one then there would be no limit on what they could do and citizens' constitutional rights would be rendered meaningless since Congress has no authority to regulate these matters directly due to its limited enumerated powers under Article I of the US Constitution.