In Railroad Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to take possession of a railroad line owned by the Railroad Company. The Railroad Company argued that the United States had no right to take possession of the railroad line without just compensation. The United States argued that it had the right to take possession of the railroad line under the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Court held that the United States did have the right to take possession of the railroad line under the power of eminent domain. The Court reasoned that the power of eminent domain was a necessary power of the government in order to carry out its duties and responsibilities. The Court also held that the United States was not required to pay just compensation for the taking of the railroad line, as the taking was for a public purpose. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that the United States has the right to take possession of private property for public purposes without paying just compensation. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is an important part of the law of eminent domain.

In Railroad Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to provide sufficient brakes on one of its trains. The majority opinion found that the railroad company was not liable because it had taken reasonable steps to ensure safety and there were no specific laws requiring additional precautions. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that the railway should have been held responsible for any injuries resulting from their failure to take adequate measures against foreseeable risks posed by their train operations. He argued that companies must exercise due care when operating dangerous machinery and should be held accountable if they fail in this duty; otherwise, public safety would suffer as a result of inadequate regulation or enforcement of existing regulations. Furthermore, he argued that allowing companies such as railroads off-the-hook for negligent behavior would create an unfair advantage over other businesses who are required to adhere strictly with applicable laws and regulations governing their activities.