In Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway v. Huntington, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a railway company was liable for damages caused by a collision between two of its trains. The plaintiff, Huntington, was a passenger on one of the trains and was injured in the collision. He sued the railway company for damages, claiming that the company was negligent in its operation of the trains. The Supreme Court held that the railway company was liable for the damages caused by the collision. The Court found that the company had failed to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains, and that this negligence had caused the collision. The Court also held that the company was liable for the damages suffered by Huntington, as it was foreseeable that a collision between two of its trains could cause injury to passengers. The Court's decision established that railway companies are liable for damages caused by their negligence in the operation of their trains. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving railway companies and their liability for damages caused by their negligence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway v. Huntington, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written, unless there is evidence of fraud or mistake. In this case, he noted that no such evidence had been presented by either party; thus, it was not up to the court to modify or alter any terms of the agreement without clear proof of wrongdoing on behalf of one side or another. Furthermore, Justice Field maintained that even if an ambiguity existed within the contract language itself - which he did not believe was true in this instance - then it would still be incumbent upon both parties to come together and negotiate a resolution before bringing their dispute before a court for adjudication. As such, he concluded his dissent by urging his colleagues on the bench to reverse their ruling so as "to maintain inviolate contracts made between individuals."