This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between two railroad companies, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and the St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Company. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company had a contract with the St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Company to transport goods from one point to another. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company argued that the St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Company had breached the contract by failing to transport the goods in a timely manner. The St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Company argued that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company had failed to provide the necessary equipment to transport the goods. The Supreme Court held that the St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Company was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Company had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract and had not provided the necessary equipment to transport the goods. The Court also held that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court ordered the St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Company to pay the Pennsylvania Railroad Company the amount of damages that it had suffered as a result of the breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Pennsylvania Railroad Company & Others v. St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Company, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a contract between two railroad companies and failed to consider relevant evidence of their intent when making its ruling. He argued that while it was true that one company had agreed to pay for any damages caused by its use of another's tracks, this did not mean they were liable for all such damages regardless of fault or negligence on either side; rather, he believed there must have been an understanding between them as to what constituted reasonable care and diligence in order for liability to be imposed upon one party or the other. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if both parties had intended absolute liability without regard to fault or negligence on either side at some point during their negotiations over the contract terms – which he doubted – then this would still be subject to change based on subsequent events and circumstances beyond their control. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that neither party should bear full responsibility for any damage done due solely to acts outside of their control; instead each should only be held responsible accordingto whatever agreement they made with respect thereto prior entering into said contract