The Michigan Central Railroad Company brought a case against the Michigan Southern Railroad Company and others. The dispute was over an agreement between the two companies, which had been made in 1846. The agreement stated that each company would build its own line of railroad from Toledo to Chicago, but that they would share profits equally if one of them built both lines. However, when it came time for the division of profits in 1853, there were disagreements as to how much money should be paid out by each party. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Michigan Central Railroad Company and ordered all parties involved to pay damages according to their respective obligations under the original contract.

In the Michigan Central Railroad Company v. The Michigan Southern Railroad Company et al., Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the state of Michigan had no authority to grant exclusive rights over public navigable waters and therefore could not give such privileges to any railroad company. He further contended that Congress alone has the power to regulate interstate commerce, including navigation on public waterways, and thus should be responsible for determining who can use them. Furthermore, he noted that if states were allowed to grant exclusive rights over these waters it would lead to an unequal distribution of resources among different companies as well as create conflicts between states with regard to their respective interests in regulating trade within their borders. In conclusion, Chief Justice Taney believed that allowing states control over navigable rivers was unconstitutional and would ultimately undermine federal authority by creating a patchwork system of regulation across state lines.