This case was a dispute between two railroad companies, the Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain Railroad Company and the Nashua & Lowell Railroad Company. The Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain Railroad Company had been granted a charter by the state of New York to construct a railroad from Ogdensburgh to Rouse's Point. The Nashua & Lowell Railroad Company had been granted a charter by the state of Massachusetts to construct a railroad from Nashua to Lowell. The two companies had a dispute over the right to construct a railroad across the Connecticut River. The Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain Railroad Company argued that it had the right to construct a railroad across the Connecticut River because it had been granted a charter by the state of New York. The Nashua & Lowell Railroad Company argued that it had the right to construct a railroad across the Connecticut River because it had been granted a charter by the state of Massachusetts. The Supreme Court held that the Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain Railroad Company had the right to construct a railroad across the Connecticut River. The Court reasoned that the Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain Railroad Company had been granted a charter by the state of New York, and that the state of New York had the right to grant a charter to construct a railroad across the Connecticut River. The Court also held that the Nashua & Lowell Railroad Company did not have the right to construct a railroad across the Connecticut River because it had been granted a charter by the state of Massachusetts, and the state of Massachusetts did not have the right to grant a charter to construct a railroad across the Connecticut River.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the Nashua & Lowell Railroad Company had a valid contract with Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain Railroad Company, and that it should be enforced as written. The majority of justices disagreed, ruling that the contract was void due to an alleged violation of state law. Justice Field believed this decision was wrong because there was no evidence presented at trial showing any such violation occurred. Furthermore, he noted that even if a violation did occur, it would not necessarily render the entire agreement invalid; rather only those parts which violated state law should have been voided while leaving other provisions intact. In conclusion, Justice Field felt strongly that contracts must be respected and upheld unless they are clearly contrary to public policy or violate some positive provision of law - neither of which applied here according to his interpretation of events.