This case was a dispute between the Singer Manufacturing Company and the Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company over the patent rights to a sewing machine. The Singer Manufacturing Company had obtained a patent for a sewing machine in 1851, and the Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company had obtained a patent for a similar machine in 1854. The Singer Manufacturing Company argued that the Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company's patent was invalid because it was too similar to their own. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company, finding that the two machines were not substantially similar and that the Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company's patent was valid. The Court held that the two machines were different in their construction and operation, and that the Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company's patent was not an infringement of the Singer Manufacturing Company's patent. The Court also held that the Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company's patent was valid because it was the first to invent the machine. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a patent is valid if it is the first to invent a machine, even if it is similar to another machine that has already been patented. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving patent disputes.

In the Case of the Sewing Machine Companies, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that Congress had no power to grant exclusive rights in inventions and patents for sewing machines as it would be an unconstitutional extension of its powers under the Constitution. He further stated that such grants were not necessary or proper for carrying out any other constitutional power granted to Congress. In addition, he noted that if Congress was allowed to make such grants then they could also grant exclusive privileges in all kinds of business operations which would lead to monopolies and oppressive restrictions on trade. Furthermore, he argued that granting these exclusive rights violated both public policy and natural justice by allowing one person or company to have control over something which should be available for everyone's use without restriction or payment of royalties. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that if this decision was upheld it would set a dangerous precedent whereby similar exclusives could be granted in many different areas with potentially devastating consequences on competition and free enterprise throughout the United States economy.