Smith v. Railroad Company is a United States Supreme Court case from 1878. The case involved a dispute between Smith, a railroad company, and a third party. Smith had contracted with the railroad company to transport goods from one place to another. The third party had also contracted with the railroad company to transport goods from the same place to the same destination. The railroad company failed to deliver Smith's goods, and Smith sued the railroad company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the railroad company had a duty to deliver Smith's goods, and that the third party's contract did not relieve the railroad company of this duty. The Court also held that the railroad company was liable for damages, and that Smith was entitled to recover the full amount of his losses. The Court's decision in Smith v. Railroad Company established that a railroad company is liable for breach of contract when it fails to deliver goods that it has contracted to transport. The decision also established that a third party's contract does not relieve the railroad company of its duty to deliver goods.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Smith v. Railroad Company, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key point of law. He argued that under the common law, when an individual was injured by another's negligence and unable to prove actual damages, they were entitled to nominal damages as compensation for their injury regardless of whether or not it could be proven that any real harm had been done. In this case, he argued that since Smith was unable to prove his actual damages due to lack of evidence regarding what those might have been prior to his injury on the railroad company's property, he should still be entitled to some form of compensation for being wronged even if it is only nominal in nature. Justice Field concluded by stating that while there may have been no proof presented at trial showing how much damage Smith suffered from his injuries on the railroad company’s property before filing suit against them; nevertheless he should still receive some form of recompense for having endured such an ordeal and thus deserved more than just a dismissal with prejudice as ordered by the majority opinion.