In Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railway Company v. Kansas Pacific Railway Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Kansas Pacific Railway Company had the right to construct a bridge over the Missouri River. The Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railway Company argued that the bridge would interfere with their own operations and that the Kansas Pacific Railway Company did not have the right to construct the bridge. The Supreme Court held that the Kansas Pacific Railway Company did have the right to construct the bridge. The Court reasoned that the bridge was necessary for the efficient operation of the Kansas Pacific Railway Company and that the bridge would not interfere with the operations of the Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railway Company. The Court also noted that the bridge was necessary for the public good and that the Kansas Pacific Railway Company had the right to construct the bridge. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Kansas Pacific Railway Company had the right to construct the bridge over the Missouri River. The Court reasoned that the bridge was necessary for the efficient operation of the Kansas Pacific Railway Company and that the bridge would not interfere with the operations of the Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railway Company. The Court also noted that the bridge was necessary for the public good and that the Kansas Pacific Railway Company had the right to construct the bridge.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railway Company v. Kansas Pacific Railway Company. He argued that the majority's decision was based on a misapplication of law to facts which did not support it. The case involved two railroad companies who had entered into an agreement for one company to build a bridge over another's tracks at their own expense; however, when construction began the other company refused to allow them access or cooperate with them in any way. Justice Field argued that under these circumstances there was no legal basis for denying relief as requested by the plaintiff railway company since they were entitled to use reasonable means necessary for constructing its bridge across defendant’s track without interference from defendant or anyone else authorized by him. Furthermore, he noted that if such obstruction is allowed then all contracts between railroads would be rendered nugatory because either party could refuse performance whenever it suited their interests regardless of what obligations are imposed upon them by contract law and public policy considerations regarding transportation infrastructure development projects like this one should also be taken into account when deciding cases like this one as well. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that granting relief here would have been consistent with both justice and equity while refusing it would only serve injustice and inequity instead so he dissented from the majority opinion on those grounds alone