In Brooklyn v. Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between a city and an insurance company was valid. The city of Brooklyn had entered into a contract with an insurance company to provide fire insurance coverage for certain properties. The insurance company refused to pay out on the policy when a fire occurred, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been approved by the state legislature. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was not subject to the approval of the state legislature because it was a contract between two private parties. The Court further held that the contract was valid because it was not contrary to public policy. The Court noted that the contract was beneficial to the public, as it provided fire insurance coverage for the properties in question. The Court's decision in Brooklyn v. Insurance Company established that contracts between private parties are valid and enforceable, even if they are not approved by the state legislature. The decision also established that contracts are valid if they are not contrary to public policy.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Brooklyn v. Insurance Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a municipality cannot be held liable for damages caused by an act of negligence unless it has assumed responsibility for such acts through its own legislation or contract. The City of Brooklyn had not done so in this case, as there was no evidence that it had ever agreed to indemnify the insurance company against any losses resulting from its negligence. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there had been such an agreement between the parties, it would have been void under New York state law due to public policy considerations regarding municipal liability for torts committed by private individuals or corporations acting on behalf of municipalities. Thus, he concluded that since there was no contractual obligation between the parties and no statutory authority authorizing indemnification payments from municipal funds, then judgment should have gone in favor of Brooklyn instead of against them as decided by the majority opinion.