In Broder v. Water Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a water company had the right to charge a higher rate for water used for manufacturing purposes than for domestic use. The plaintiff, Broder, argued that the water company had no right to charge a higher rate for manufacturing purposes, as it was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the water company had the right to charge a higher rate for manufacturing purposes, as it was a reasonable exercise of the company's power to regulate the use of its water. The Court reasoned that the company had the right to charge a higher rate for manufacturing purposes, as it was necessary to ensure that the company could continue to provide water to its customers. The Court also noted that the higher rate was not an unreasonable burden on the plaintiff, as it was necessary to ensure that the company could continue to provide water to its customers. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the water company had the right to charge a higher rate for manufacturing purposes, as it was a reasonable exercise of the company's power to regulate the use of its water. The Court also noted that the higher rate was not an unreasonable burden on the plaintiff, as it was necessary to ensure that the company could continue to provide water to its customers.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Broder v. Water Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is some legal reason for not doing so. In this case, he noted that no such reason existed; therefore, it was wrong for the court to refuse enforcement of the contract as written. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if one party had been allowed to unilaterally change or modify an agreement without consent from both parties then contracts would become meaningless and unenforceable because any party could simply alter them at will with impunity. He concluded by stating his belief that courts should enforce contracts as written unless there is clear evidence of fraud or illegality on either side which did not exist in this case.