This case was a dispute between the Bradstreet Company and Higgins over a contract for the sale of goods. The Bradstreet Company had sold goods to Higgins, who had agreed to pay for them in installments. Higgins had failed to make the payments, and the Bradstreet Company sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the Bradstreet Company was entitled to recover the unpaid balance of the purchase price, plus interest. The Court also held that the Bradstreet Company was entitled to recover damages for the breach of contract, but that the amount of damages should be determined by the jury. The Court noted that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable, and that the Bradstreet Company had the right to recover the unpaid balance of the purchase price. The Court also held that the Bradstreet Company was entitled to recover damages for the breach of contract, but that the amount of damages should be determined by the jury. The Court noted that the damages should be based on the difference between the value of the goods at the time of the breach and the amount that Higgins had agreed to pay for them. The Court also held that the Bradstreet Company was entitled to recover interest on the unpaid balance of the purchase price. The Court noted that the interest should be calculated from the date of the breach of contract, and that the amount of interest should be determined by the jury. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Bradstreet Company was entitled to recover the unpaid balance of the purchase price, plus interest and damages for the breach of contract. The amount of damages and interest should be determined by the jury.

In the case of Bradstreet Company v. Higgins, 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 Bradstreet and Higgins. He stated that while it is true that there are certain implied warranties in contracts, they do not extend to all cases where one party has acted negligently or fraudulently towards another. In this particular case, Justice Field believed that since no express warranty had been made by either party regarding any specific performance or result from their agreement, then neither could be held liable for damages resulting from such negligence or fraud. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some sort of implied warranty present in this situation, it would only apply to those matters specifically mentioned within the terms of the contract itself; thus making any claims for damages due to negligence or fraud outside its scope invalid. Ultimately his dissent concluded with him stating his belief that as long as both parties have met their obligations under a valid contract then neither should be held responsible for losses incurred through fraudulent acts committed by either side after entering into said agreement