| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Marquette, Houghton, and Ontonagon Railroad Company v. United States was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the railroad company and the United States government over the right to use certain lands for the construction of a railroad. The railroad company argued that it had the right to use the lands under the terms of a contract between the company and the government. The government argued that the contract was invalid and that the company had no right to use the lands. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the government, ruling that the contract was invalid and that the company had no right to use the lands. The Court held that the contract was invalid because it was not authorized by Congress and was not in the public interest. The Court also held that the company had no right to use the lands because the government had not granted it permission to do so. The Court's decision was a major victory for the government and set a precedent for future cases involving the use of public lands.
In Marquette, Houghton, and Ontonagon Railroad Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to properly maintain its tracks. The majority opinion of the court found that the railroad company was not liable because it had acted with reasonable care and diligence in maintaining its tracks. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had intended for railroads to be held strictly accountable for any damage they cause; secondly, he maintained that even if there were no statutory requirement of strict liability imposed upon railroads by Congress then common law should still apply which would hold them responsible regardless of their level of care or diligence exercised when maintaining their tracks. In conclusion Justice Field believed that either way the railroad company should have been held liable for damages caused due to their negligence in failing to properly maintain their tracks.