This case was a dispute between the Lake Superior and Mississippi Railroad Company and the United States. The Railroad Company argued that the United States had wrongfully taken possession of certain lands that the Railroad Company had purchased from the State of Wisconsin. The Railroad Company argued that the United States had no right to take possession of the lands without paying compensation. The Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to take possession of the lands without paying compensation. The Court reasoned that the United States had the right to take possession of the lands for public use, and that the Railroad Company had no right to compensation for the taking. The Court also held that the Railroad Company had no right to challenge the taking of the lands, as the Railroad Company had not yet taken possession of the lands. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to take possession of the lands without paying compensation to the Railroad Company. The Court reasoned that the United States had the right to take possession of the lands for public use, and that the Railroad Company had no right to compensation for the taking.

In the case of Lake Superior and Mississippi Railroad Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to provide adequate fencing along its tracks. The majority opinion found that the company was indeed liable for such damages due to their failure to exercise reasonable care in protecting against foreseeable risks posed by their operations. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had not intended for railroads to be held responsible under common law principles; secondly, he contended that it would place an undue burden upon them if they were required to fence all of their lines at great expense without any assurance of compensation from those who benefit from such protection. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that while it may have been prudent for the railroad company in question to provide proper fencing along its trackways as a matter of safety and convenience, there should be no legal obligation imposed upon them which would require them do so without recompense.