In the case of Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railway Company v. Keokuk and Hamilton Bridge Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Keokuk and Hamilton Bridge Company had the right to charge tolls for the use of its bridge by the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railway Company. The bridge was located on the Mississippi River and was used by the railway company to transport goods and passengers. The Supreme Court held that the bridge company had the right to charge tolls for the use of its bridge. The Court reasoned that the bridge company had a valid contract with the railway company, which allowed the bridge company to charge tolls for the use of its bridge. The Court also noted that the bridge company had invested a significant amount of money in the construction and maintenance of the bridge, and that it was entitled to receive compensation for its efforts. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the bridge company had the right to charge tolls for the use of its bridge by the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railway Company. The Court reasoned that the bridge company had a valid contract with the railway company, and that it was entitled to receive compensation for its efforts in constructing and maintaining the bridge.

In the case of Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railway Company v. Keokuk and Hamilton Bridge Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bridge company had to pay damages for obstructing navigation on a river due to its construction of a railroad bridge across it. The majority opinion held that since Congress had granted permission for the construction of such bridges in navigable rivers, no liability could be imposed upon them as long as they did not unreasonably interfere with navigation or commerce on those waters. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling arguing that while Congress may have given permission for these bridges to be built over navigable rivers, it did not absolve them from any responsibility if their presence caused damage or obstruction to vessels navigating through those waters. He argued that even though there might have been some benefit derived by allowing these structures in certain cases where local interests were involved; still when injury resulted from their erection without fault or negligence on either side then compensation should be made by the party who erected them regardless of congressional approval being obtained beforehand