In Susquehanna Boom Company & Others v. West Branch Boom Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the West Branch Boom Company had the right to construct a dam across the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna Boom Company and others argued that the West Branch Boom Company did not have the right to construct the dam, as it would interfere with their rights to use the river for navigation and commerce. The Supreme Court held that the West Branch Boom Company did not have the right to construct the dam, as it would interfere with the rights of the Susquehanna Boom Company and others to use the river for navigation and commerce. The Court noted that the Susquehanna Boom Company and others had a vested right to use the river for navigation and commerce, and that the West Branch Boom Company had no right to interfere with that right. The Court also noted that the West Branch Boom Company had not obtained the necessary permission from the state legislature to construct the dam. The Court concluded that the West Branch Boom Company did not have the right to construct the dam, and that the Susquehanna Boom Company and others had the right to use the river for navigation and commerce. The Court also noted that the West Branch Boom Company had not obtained the necessary permission from the state legislature to construct the dam.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Susquehanna Boom Company & Others v. West Branch Boom Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to confusion in future cases. He argued that a state court could not be deprived of jurisdiction over a case simply because it had been removed from its original forum by another party. Furthermore, he contended that Congress did not intend for removal proceedings to be used as an instrument of oppression or injustice against parties who were unable to remove their own cases due to lack of resources or knowledge about legal procedure. Finally, Justice Field noted that if the Court allowed this type of removal without consent from all parties involved, then it would create uncertainty regarding which court should hear any given case and potentially undermine public confidence in judicial decisions made by both federal and state courts alike.