In Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company & Others v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company and other railroads had the right to use the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company's tracks to transport their freight. The Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company and the other railroads argued that they had the right to use the tracks under the terms of a contract between the two companies. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company argued that the contract was invalid and that the other railroads did not have the right to use their tracks. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two companies was valid and that the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company and the other railroads had the right to use the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company's tracks to transport their freight. The Court found that the contract was binding and that the other railroads had the right to use the tracks under the terms of the contract. The Court also held that the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company was not entitled to any compensation for the use of its tracks.

In Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company & Others v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, the dissenting opinion was that the majority's decision to deny an injunction against the defendant railway company would result in a monopoly of transportation services and rates for all railroads operating between Sioux City and points eastward on its line. The dissent argued that this monopoly would be detrimental to both public interest and competition among railroad companies because it would allow one company to control prices without any regard for other competing businesses or their customers' interests. Furthermore, they argued that such a monopoly could lead to higher costs for consumers as well as reduced service quality due to lack of competition from other providers in the market place. Ultimately, they concluded by stating that if allowed unchecked, monopolies like this can have long-term negative effects on economic growth and development within communities served by these railroads which is why an injunction should have been granted in order protect free trade principles under existing law at the time