This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the Thomas, Trustee, and the Brownville, Fort Kearney, and Pacific Railroad Company and others. The Trustee had purchased bonds from the Railroad Company, and the Railroad Company had failed to pay the interest due on the bonds. The Trustee then brought suit against the Railroad Company and others to recover the unpaid interest. The Supreme Court held that the Trustee was entitled to recover the unpaid interest. The Court found that the Railroad Company had issued the bonds in good faith and had promised to pay the interest due on them. The Court also found that the Trustee had purchased the bonds in good faith and had a right to recover the unpaid interest. The Court also held that the Railroad Company was liable for the unpaid interest, even though the bonds had been issued before the Railroad Company had been incorporated. The Court found that the Railroad Company had assumed the obligations of the bonds when it was incorporated, and was therefore liable for the unpaid interest. Finally, the Court held that the Trustee was entitled to recover the unpaid interest from the Railroad Company and any other parties who had assumed the obligations of the bonds. The Court found that the Trustee had a right to recover the unpaid interest from any party who had assumed the obligations of the bonds.

In Thomas, Trustee v. Brownville, Fort Kearney and Pacific Railroad Company and Others (1883), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over certain railroad bonds issued by Nebraska in 1867. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because the bonds were issued under federal law, which gave exclusive authority to federal courts for such matters. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had never intended to give exclusive power to federal courts; secondly, he maintained that even if it had done so then it would be unconstitutional as it would deprive states of their sovereignty in violation of Article III of the Constitution. He concluded by stating his belief that “the State has an undoubted right” to exercise its own judicial powers with respect to these particular bonds without interference from any other government body or institution.