In the case of Kansas Pacific Railway Company v. Dunmeyer, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by a fire that was started by sparks from one of its locomotives. The plaintiff, Dunmeyer, had sued the railroad company for damages to his property caused 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 railroad company had a duty to use reasonable care to prevent sparks from its locomotives from setting fire to adjacent property. The Court noted that the railroad company had failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the fire, such as providing spark arresters on its locomotives, and thus was liable for the damages caused by the fire. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the fire, as it had failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the fire.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Kansas Pacific Railway Company v. Dunmeyer, arguing that the majority had misapplied a previous decision of the Supreme Court and was wrong to deny compensation for damages caused by an act of Congress. He argued that when a party has been damaged as a result of an act passed by Congress, they should be compensated unless it is explicitly stated otherwise in the legislation itself or if there are other legal reasons why such compensation would not be due. In this case, he noted that no such language existed and thus concluded that Dunmeyer should have been awarded damages for his loss. Furthermore, Justice Field argued against what he saw as judicial activism on behalf of Congress; while it may have seemed reasonable to deny compensation given certain facts presented before them at trial, he believed this was ultimately up to Congress rather than judges who were overstepping their bounds by making decisions about matters which did not fall within their jurisdiction.