The Supreme Court case of Richmond and Danville Railroad Company v. Thouron was a dispute between the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company and the Thouron family over the ownership of a parcel of land in Virginia. The Thouron family had purchased the land in 1867, but the railroad company claimed that it had acquired the land through a prior deed in 1864. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company had acquired the land through the prior deed, and that the Thouron family had no claim to the land. The Court also held that the railroad company had the right to use the land for its own purposes, and that the Thouron family was not entitled to any compensation for the land. The Court also held that the Thouron family was not entitled to any damages for the railroad company's use of the land. The Court's decision was based on the principle that a prior deed is superior to a later deed, and that the railroad company had acquired the land through the prior deed.

In the Supreme Court case of Richmond and Danville Railroad Company v. Thouron, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted the meaning of "accrued" as it was used in an agreement between two parties. He argued that when one party agrees to pay another for services rendered over time, such payments are not considered "accrued" until they have actually been received by the other party. Therefore, since Thouron had not yet received any payment from Richmond and Danville Railroad Company at the time his claim arose, he could still bring suit against them for breach of contract even though some payments were due before then according to their agreement. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that Thouron should be allowed to pursue his claim against Richmond and Danville Railroad Company because they had failed to make timely payments as agreed upon in their contract.