In the case of Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company v. Arms et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a railway company was liable for damages caused by a collision between two of its trains. The railway company argued that it was not liable because the collision was caused by the negligence of the engineer of one of the trains. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the railway company was liable for the damages caused by the collision. The Court reasoned that the railway company was responsible for the negligence of its employees, and that the engineer was an employee of the railway company. Therefore, the railway company was liable for the damages caused by the collision. The Court also held that the railway company was liable for the negligence of its employees, regardless of whether the negligence was intentional or unintentional. This case established the principle that a railway company is liable for the negligence of its employees, and that the company is responsible for any damages caused by the negligence of its employees.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company v. Arms et al., arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding, even if it contains an illegal provision, unless there is evidence of fraud or mistake on either side when entering into the agreement. In this case, he noted that no such evidence existed; therefore, both parties were bound to their contractual obligations as written in the original document. Furthermore, Justice Field contended that since neither party had any knowledge of illegality at the time they entered into their contract - which was later found to contain an illegal provision - then they should not be held liable for its contents after-the-fact. Therefore, he concluded by asserting his belief that both sides should remain bound by their initial agreement despite its illegality under state law due to lack of proof of fraudulent behavior or mistake on either side when signing it originally