This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between two railroad companies, the St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad Company and the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company. The St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad Company had been granted a charter by the state of Iowa to construct a railroad from Sioux City to St. Paul, Minnesota. The Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company had been granted a charter by the state of Minnesota to construct a railroad from St. Peter to Winona, Minnesota. The two companies had agreed to construct a joint line of railroad between St. Peter and Sioux City, but the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company had failed to fulfill its part of the agreement. The St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad Company sued the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company was liable for breach of contract and awarded damages to the St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad Company. The Court also held that the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company was liable for the costs of constructing the joint line of railroad, as well as the costs of maintaining and operating the line. The Court further held that the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company was liable for any losses suffered by the St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad Company as a result of the breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the majority's decision was based on a misreading of the contract between St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad Company and Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company, which stated that no other railroad could be built within five miles of either company’s line without its consent. Justice Field argued that this clause did not apply to railroads already existing at the time of signing, such as those owned by defendant Thomas Wilson and his associates; rather, it only applied to any future construction projects initiated after signing. Furthermore, he noted that even if these pre-existing railroads were subject to this clause, they had been operating for over twenty years prior to when St. Paul & Sioux City filed their complaint against them - thus making them exempt from any restrictions due to laches (unreasonable delay). In conclusion, Justice Field believed there was insufficient evidence presented in court for a ruling against Wilson and his associates; therefore he dissented with the majority opinion and voted in favor of reversing judgment below