The Junction Railroad Company v. The Bank of Ashland was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case centered around a dispute between the Junction Railroad Company and the Bank of Ashland over a loan made by the Bank of Ashland to the Junction Railroad Company. The Junction Railroad Company had borrowed money from the Bank of Ashland in order to build a railroad line, but the loan was not repaid. The Bank of Ashland then sued the Junction Railroad Company for the unpaid loan. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bank of Ashland, finding that the Junction Railroad Company had breached its contract with the Bank of Ashland by failing to repay the loan. The Court held that the Bank of Ashland was entitled to recover the unpaid loan, plus interest, from the Junction Railroad Company. The Court also held that the Bank of Ashland was entitled to recover its costs and attorney's fees from the Junction Railroad Company. The Supreme Court's decision in this case established that a lender is entitled to recover its costs and attorney's fees from a borrower who fails to repay a loan. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving loan defaults.

In the case of The Junction Railroad Company v. The Bank of Ashland, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted by courts to mean something different than what was agreed upon in writing. In this particular case, the bank had loaned money to the railroad company with an agreement that if it defaulted on its payments, then all outstanding debts would become due immediately. However, when payment was not made on time, instead of demanding immediate repayment as specified in their contract, the bank allowed for more time before taking action against them. This decision by the court meant that even though both parties had entered into a legally binding agreement which stated otherwise; they were now being held to terms other than those originally agreed upon and set forth in writing. As such, Justice Field believed this violated basic principles of law and justice since contracts are supposed to be honored according to their original terms unless modified or rescinded through mutual consent from both sides involved