In Republican River Bridge Company v. Kansas Pacific Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company had the right to construct a bridge over the Republican River in Nebraska. The Republican River Bridge Company argued that the bridge would interfere with their own bridge, which was already in place. The Supreme Court held that the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company did not have the right to construct the bridge. The Court found that the bridge would interfere with the rights of the Republican River Bridge Company, and that the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company had not obtained the necessary permission from the state of Nebraska to build the bridge. The Court also found that the bridge would be a public nuisance, as it would interfere with navigation on the river. The Court concluded that the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company did not have the right to construct the bridge, and that the Republican River Bridge Company was entitled to an injunction to prevent the construction of the bridge. The Court also held that the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company was liable for damages caused by the interference with the rights of the Republican River Bridge Company.

In the case of Republican River Bridge Company v. Kansas Pacific Railroad Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that the majority had misconstrued the contract between the two companies. He argued that while it was true that both parties agreed to build and maintain bridges over their respective railroads, they also agreed to allow each other’s trains access to those bridges without interference or obstruction from either party. The majority opinion held that this agreement did not require one company to provide free passage for another's trains across its bridge; however, Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation and argued instead that such an obligation was implied in their contract. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were no express terms requiring free passage across each other’s bridges, then at least some form of compensation should be paid by one party for use of another's bridge since it would otherwise constitute unjust enrichment on behalf of one company at the expense of another. In conclusion, Justice Field believed his interpretation better reflected what both parties intended when entering into their contractual arrangement and thus dissented from the majority opinion in favor of allowing some form of compensation for use or access rights granted under said contract.