In Railway Company v. McShane et al., the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railway company was liable for damages caused by a train accident. The accident occurred when a train operated by the railway company collided with a wagon driven by the plaintiff, McShane. The plaintiff argued that the railway company was negligent in its operation of the train and was therefore liable for the damages caused by the accident. The Supreme Court held that the railway company was liable for the damages caused by the accident. The Court found that the railway company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains and that it had breached this duty by failing to take proper precautions to avoid the accident. The Court also found that the plaintiff had been injured as a result of the railway company's negligence and was therefore entitled to damages. The Court's decision established that railway companies have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of their trains and that they can be held liable for damages caused by their negligence. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving railway companies and their liability for damages caused by their negligence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Railway Company v. McShane et al., arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is fair or equitable. In this case, he believed that the railroad company had an obligation under their contract with McShane et al., which they were not fulfilling by refusing to pay for services rendered. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there was some ambiguity in the language of the contract itself, it should have been interpreted liberally so as to uphold its original intent and purpose - namely, payment for services provided by McShane et al.. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that any other interpretation would lead to unjust results and encourage corporations from taking advantage of smaller entities like individuals or small businesses who are unable enter into contracts on equal footing with large companies such as railroads.