Morgan v. Railroad Company is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1877. The case involved a dispute between a railroad company and a landowner, Morgan, over the right of way of a railroad. Morgan owned land that the railroad company wanted to use for its tracks. Morgan refused to grant the right of way and the railroad company sued him for damages. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company had the right to use the land for its tracks, but that it had to pay Morgan for the use of the land. The Court held that the railroad company had the right to use the land, but that it had to pay Morgan for the use of the land. The Court also held that the railroad company had to pay Morgan for the damage that the railroad caused to his land. The Court's decision established the principle that a railroad company has the right to use land for its tracks, but that it must pay the landowner for the use of the land and for any damage that the railroad causes to the land. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and is still an important part of the law today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Morgan v. Railroad Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a contract between two parties should be interpreted according to its plain language, not by any extraneous considerations or implications. In this case, he argued that the contract clearly stated that if either party failed to perform their obligations under it then they would be liable for damages caused as a result of such failure. The majority had instead held that since one of the parties had been unable to fulfill their obligation due to an act of God (a flood), they were not liable for damages resulting from this inability - even though there was no clause in the agreement exempting them from liability in such circumstances. Justice Field believed this interpretation ran counter to existing legal principles and could lead to unjust results where contracts are concerned; thus he dissented from his colleagues' ruling on these grounds.