Railroad Land Company v. Courtright was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1874. The case involved a dispute between the Railroad Land Company and the Courtright family over a piece of land in California. The Railroad Land Company had purchased the land from the United States government in 1867, but the Courtright family claimed that they had been in possession of the land since 1853. The Courtright family argued that they had acquired the land through a Mexican land grant, and that the Railroad Land Company's purchase was invalid. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Railroad Land Company, finding that the Courtright family had not established a valid claim to the land. The Court held that the Mexican land grant was not valid, as it had not been approved by the United States government. The Court also held that the Railroad Land Company's purchase of the land from the United States government was valid, and that the Courtright family had no claim to the land. The Court's decision established that the United States government had the right to sell public land, and that private individuals could not claim ownership of such land without proper authorization.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Railroad Land Company v. Courtright, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or logic. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and that any ambiguity should be interpreted against the drafter of the document. In this case, he believed it was clear from reading both contracts together that they were intended to operate together and form one continuous agreement for an extended period of time. The majority had found otherwise, but Justice Field argued there was no basis for their conclusion since neither party had ever expressed any intention to terminate either contract before its expiration date. Furthermore, he noted how such a ruling would create uncertainty in future cases where similar facts are present because it is impossible to know when courts will find an implied termination clause exists or not without knowing what factors they will consider relevant in making such determinations.