This US Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company and the plaintiff, Hopkins. Hopkins had been hired by the railroad company to survey and mark a route for the railroad. He was promised a certain amount of money for his services, but the railroad company refused to pay him the full amount. Hopkins sued the railroad company for the unpaid wages. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hopkins, finding that the railroad company had breached its contract with Hopkins. The Court held that the railroad company was liable for the full amount of wages promised to Hopkins, plus interest. The Court also held that the railroad company was liable for any damages caused by its breach of contract. The Court's decision established that employers must fulfill their contractual obligations to employees, and that employees can sue for breach of contract if their employers fail to do so. This case also established that employers are liable for any damages caused by their breach of contract.

In the case of Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties had been breached by one party when they failed to pay for services rendered. The majority opinion held that there had indeed been a breach of contract, but Justice Field dissented from this decision on the basis that it should have been up to Congress to decide if such an agreement could be enforced in court or not. He argued that since Congress had not explicitly authorized courts to enforce contracts like these, then it would be wrong for them do so without congressional approval first. Furthermore, he suggested that even if such contracts were allowed under law, they still needed explicit authorization from Congress before being enforced in court as per Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which states “The Congress shall have Power To…make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” certain powers granted by other sections of the document. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that while there may have been a breach of contract here according to common law principles; enforcing said breach should ultimately fall within Congressional authority rather than judicial discretion alone