In the case of PEIK v. CHICAGO AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a train accident. The plaintiff, Peik, was a passenger on a train operated by the defendant, the Chicago and North-Western Railway Company. The train derailed, causing Peik to suffer serious injuries. Peik sued the railroad company for damages, claiming that the accident was caused by the company's negligence. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident. The Court found that the company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains, and that it had breached this duty by failing to properly maintain the tracks. The Court also found that the company had failed to provide adequate warnings to passengers about the condition of the tracks. As a result, the Court held that the company was liable for the damages caused by the accident.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in PEIK v. CHICAGO AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, and any ambiguity or uncertainty should be resolved in favor of the party who did not draft it. In this case, he believed that Peik had been wrongfully denied his right under their agreement with Chicago & North-Western Railway Company (C&NW). The contract stated that C&NW would pay for all damages caused by their negligence; however, they refused to do so when Peik suffered losses due to an accident on one of their trains. Justice Field argued that since there was no dispute as to what happened or how much damage occurred, C&NW should have paid for those damages without question. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some doubt about whether or not C&NW was liable for these damages under the contract language itself - which he felt there wasn't - then such doubts must still be resolved in favor of Peik because it is well established legal principle "that where a written instrument is ambiguous...the construction most favorable" must prevail over any other interpretation given by either party involved in the transaction at hand.