The Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad Company v. Countryman case in 1895 revolved around a dispute over land ownership rights between the railroad company and an individual named Countryman. The railroad company claimed that it had been granted certain lands by Congress under the Act of May 12, 1864, which was intended to aid in the construction of railroads from Sioux City to Saint Paul. However, Mr. Countryman argued that he held valid title deeds for some parts of this land based on preemption laws - federal statutes allowing settlers on public lands who were heads of families or over twenty-one years old to purchase up to one hundred sixty acres before they were offered for sale publicly. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr.Countryman stating that his claim was valid as per preemption laws because when he settled there, no grant existed yet for these specific tracts since the route hadn't been fixed by then; thus making them subject to settlement and sale like any other public lands at disposal.

The dissenting opinion in the Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad Company v. Countryman case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court regarding similar issues. The dissenting justices believed that, according to precedent, a railroad company should not be held liable for damages caused by sparks from its locomotives if it had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such accidents. They contended that there was no evidence showing negligence on part of the railroad company or any failure on their part to use best available means to prevent escape of sparks from engines' smokestacks which caused fire damage in this case. Therefore, they disagreed with holding Sioux City and St.Paul Railroad Company responsible for paying damages without proof of negligence or lack thereof due diligence.