This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between two railroad companies, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and the St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company had a contract with the St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company to transport freight from St. Louis to Chicago. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company argued that the St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company had breached the contract by failing to provide the necessary services. The St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company argued that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The Supreme Court held that the St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company had breached the contract by failing to provide the necessary services. The Court also held that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The Court ordered the St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company to pay damages to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for the breach of contract. The Court also ordered the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to fulfill its obligations under the contract. This case established the principle that when two parties enter into a contract, both parties must fulfill their obligations under the contract. If one party fails to fulfill its obligations, the other party may be entitled to damages.

In Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to properly maintain its tracks. The majority opinion found that the railroad company was not liable because it had acted with due care and diligence in maintaining its tracks as required by law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that the facts of the case showed that there were numerous instances of negligence on behalf of the railroad company which should have been taken into consideration when determining liability for damages caused by their failure to properly maintain their tracks. He argued that since these acts constituted gross negligence they should have been considered when assessing responsibility for any resulting harm or damage done to another party's property or person.