This case was a dispute between the Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Company and Swan & Another. The Railway Company argued that they had a right to use a certain portion of land owned by Swan & Another for the purpose of constructing a railway. Swan & Another argued that the Railway Company did not have the right to use the land, as it was not included in the original grant of land from the state. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Railway Company, ruling that the Railway Company had the right to use the land for the purpose of constructing a railway. The Court reasoned that the Railway Company had the right to use the land, as it was necessary for the construction of the railway, and that the original grant of land from the state did not explicitly exclude the land in question. The Court also noted that the Railway Company had made a good faith effort to purchase the land from Swan & Another, but that Swan & Another had refused to sell.

In the dissenting opinion of Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Company & Another v. Swan & Another, Justice Field argued that the majority had misconstrued the language in a contract between two parties and thus reached an incorrect conclusion. He believed that when interpreting contracts it was important to consider both parties’ intent at the time of signing as well as any subsequent actions taken by either party which could be interpreted as agreement with or ratification of its terms. In this case he felt that there were sufficient facts indicating such agreement and ratification on behalf of one party so as to render them liable for their contractual obligations even though they had not signed it themselves. As such, he disagreed with his colleagues’ decision to absolve them from liability and would have found in favor of enforcing said contract against them instead.