In United States v. Denver Pacific Railway Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to take possession of a railway line that had been constructed by the Denver Pacific Railway Company. The railway line had been constructed with the aid of a loan from the United States government, and the government had taken possession of the line after the company had defaulted on the loan. The company argued that the government had no right to take possession of the line without first obtaining a court order. The Supreme Court held that the government had the right to take possession of the railway line without first obtaining a court order. The Court reasoned that the government had a right to take possession of the line in order to protect its interests in the loan. The Court also held that the government had the right to take possession of the line without first obtaining a court order because the company had defaulted on the loan and had failed to make any payments on the loan for a period of time. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to take possession of the railway line without first obtaining a court order. The Court reasoned that the government had a right to take possession of the line in order to protect its interests in the loan and that the company had defaulted on the loan and had failed to make any payments on the loan for a period of time.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Denver Pacific Railway Company, arguing that Congress had no authority to grant a right of way for a railroad across public lands without compensation. He argued that the power to dispose of public lands was vested exclusively in Congress and could not be delegated or transferred by it to any other body or person. Furthermore, he maintained that granting such rights without payment would amount to an unconstitutional taking of private property from individuals who owned land adjacent to the proposed route for the railway line. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that if this decision were allowed stand, it would set a dangerous precedent whereby Congress could grant away valuable public resources with impunity and without due process or just compensation for those affected by its actions.