Cleveland Rolling Mill v. Rhodes was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company and the Rhodes Brothers, who had contracted to supply the company with iron ore. The Rhodes Brothers had failed to deliver the ore, and the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company sued them for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the Rhodes Brothers had promised to deliver the ore and the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company had promised to pay for it. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company had a valid obligation to pay for the ore. The Court also held that the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court found that the Rhodes Brothers had failed to deliver the ore, and that the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company had suffered a loss as a result. The Court awarded the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company damages in the amount of the contract price, plus interest. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company and the Rhodes Brothers was valid and enforceable, and that the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

In the case of Cleveland Rolling Mill v. Rhodes, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to reverse and remand the lower court's ruling in favor of Rhodes. He believed that there was no evidence presented by either party which showed any fraud or mistake on behalf of either side during their contract negotiations, nor did he believe that any such evidence had been overlooked by the lower court. Furthermore, he argued that even if some form of fraud or mistake had occurred during these negotiations it would not have changed his opinion as to whether or not an agreement existed between both parties; rather, it would only be relevant when determining damages for breach of contract should one occur. As such, Justice Field concluded that since no new facts were presented before this Court and none could be found from those already present in record then there was nothing more than speculation upon which to base a reversal and remandment order from this Court.