Atkins v. The Disintegrating Company was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1873. The case involved a dispute between two companies, Atkins and The Disintegrating Company, over a contract for the sale of a patent. Atkins had agreed to purchase the patent from The Disintegrating Company for a certain sum of money, but The Disintegrating Company refused to deliver the patent. Atkins then sued The Disintegrating Company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that The Disintegrating Company was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the contract between the two companies was valid and enforceable, and that The Disintegrating Company had breached its obligations under the contract by refusing to deliver the patent. The Court also held that Atkins was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court awarded Atkins the sum of money that it had agreed to pay for the patent, plus interest and costs. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that The Disintegrating Company was liable for breach of contract and awarded Atkins damages for the breach. This case established the principle that parties to a contract must fulfill their obligations under the contract or face legal consequences.

In the case of Atkins v. The Disintegrating Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made with an understanding that one party would receive stock in another company as part of their compensation. In this particular case, Atkins had agreed to provide services for The Disintegrating Company and in exchange he was promised shares from a third-party company called The American Mining Corporation (AMC). However, AMC went bankrupt before any shares were issued and so no payment was ever received by Atkins. The majority opinion held that since there had been no actual delivery of stock or other tangible consideration given by AMC, the contract between Atkins and The Disintegrating Company could not be enforced against either party. Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that even though there may have been no physical transfer of property involved in this transaction, both parties still intended for something valuable to change hands - namely stocks from AMC - which should have sufficed as valid consideration under existing law at the time. Therefore Field argued that despite its unfortunate circumstances due to bankruptcy proceedings outside their control, both parties should still be bound by their agreement and thus entitled to some form of relief or damages accordingly.