In the case of Mobile & Montgomery Railway Company v. Jurey & Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a railway company. The case arose when the Mobile & Montgomery Railway Company (M&M) sought to construct a railway line through the property of two individuals, Jurey and another. Jurey and the other individual sought an injunction from the state court to prevent M&M from constructing the railway line. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the injunction. The Court reasoned that the power to regulate interstate commerce was vested in Congress, and that the state court could not interfere with the exercise of that power. The Court further held that the state court could not interfere with the construction of the railway line, as it was an interstate commerce matter. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the injunction, and that M&M was entitled to proceed with the construction of the railway line.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Mobile & Montgomery Railway Company v. Jurey & Another, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether one party has knowledge or not about any changes to it. In this case, he believed that the railway company had entered into an agreement with Jurey for certain services and payments without knowing about a later change in law which would have affected their contractual obligations. Justice Field argued that since they were unaware of this change at the time they made their agreement, they could not be held liable for its effects now - even if those effects are unfavorable to them - as long as all other conditions of their original contract remain unaltered. He concluded by saying that while courts may sometimes modify contracts due to changed circumstances beyond either party’s control, such modifications must always be done equitably and fairly so as not to prejudice either side unduly or unreasonably; thus reversing his colleagues' ruling was necessary here in order to ensure justice prevailed over technicalities alone.