In the case of Tioga Railroad v. Blossburg and Corning Railroad, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company had the right to build a branch line on another company's land. The Tioga Railroad Company had been granted a charter by the state of Pennsylvania to build a railroad from Blossburg to Corning. The Blossburg and Corning Railroad Company had been granted a similar charter to build a railroad from Blossburg to Corning. The Tioga Railroad Company argued that it had the right to build its branch line on the land of the Blossburg and Corning Railroad Company, as it had been granted a charter by the state of Pennsylvania. The Blossburg and Corning Railroad Company argued that it had the exclusive right to build its railroad on its own land, and that the Tioga Railroad Company had no right to build its branch line on its land. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Blossburg and Corning Railroad Company, holding that the Tioga Railroad Company had no right to build its branch line on the land of the Blossburg and Corning Railroad Company. The Court held that the charter granted to the Tioga Railroad Company did not give it the right to build its branch line on the land of the Blossburg and Corning Railroad Company, and that the Blossburg and Corning Railroad Company had the exclusive right to build its railroad on its own land. The Court also held that the Tioga Railroad Company had no right to interfere with the Blossburg and Corning Railroad Company's exclusive right to build its railroad on its own land.

In the case of Tioga Railroad v. Blossburg and Corning Railroad, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of the contract between the two railroads. He stated that it was clear from both parties' intent at the time they entered into their agreement that each railroad would be responsible for its own costs associated with maintaining and operating its respective lines, including any necessary repairs or improvements to those lines. Furthermore, he argued that if one party were allowed to unilaterally shift these costs onto another without consent then such a practice could lead to unfairness and injustice in future contracts between other parties as well. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since there had been no mutual agreement by both sides regarding who should bear responsibility for maintenance expenses related to their respective railroads then neither side should be held liable for them under this particular contract.