The Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Co. v. Reid, Sheriff was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Co. and Reid, the Sheriff of Wake County, North Carolina. The railroad company had been granted a charter by the state of North Carolina to construct a railroad line from Raleigh to Gaston. The company had begun construction of the line, but had not yet completed it. The dispute arose when Reid, the Sheriff of Wake County, attempted to levy a tax on the company for the construction of the line. The company argued that the tax was unconstitutional, as it was not authorized by the state charter. The Supreme Court agreed with the company, ruling that the tax was unconstitutional and that the company was not liable for the tax. The Court held that the state charter was the only authority for the company to construct the line, and that the tax was not authorized by the charter. The Court also held that the company was not liable for the tax, as it had not yet completed the line.

In the case of The Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Co. v. Reid, Sheriff, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a railroad company against its sheriff for failing to pay money collected from delinquent taxpayers that should have been paid to the railroad company as part of their tax levy. In his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that while it is true that states cannot interfere with interstate commerce or pass laws impairing contracts between citizens of different states, this particular case did not involve either issue since it was simply an action in debt based on unpaid taxes due under state law. He further argued that if Congress had intended for such matters to be decided exclusively by federal courts they would have made provisions for them in one of their numerous acts regulating railroads but failed to do so which indicates they never intended such cases be heard only at the federal level. Therefore he concluded that there was no reason why this matter could not properly be adjudicated in a state court and thus affirmed his dissent from the majority's decision reversing judgment below and remanding with instructions dismissing plaintiff’s complaint