In Collar Company v. Van Dusen, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Collar Company, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Van Dusen, to purchase a large quantity of collars. The contract specified that the collars were to be delivered to the plaintiff within a certain period of time. However, the defendant failed to deliver the collars within the specified time frame. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the defendant had failed to perform his obligations under the contract. The Court also noted that the defendant had not provided any evidence that he had been prevented from performing his obligations due to any unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the defendant's breach of contract.

In the case of Collar Company v. Van Dusen, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a patentee could sue for infringement when they had not paid all of their taxes due on the patent. The majority opinion held that such an action was barred by law and thus dismissed the suit. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that it should be possible for a patentee to bring an action even if they have not yet paid all of their taxes due on the patent in question. He reasoned that since patents are granted as a reward for inventors who create something new or useful, denying them access to legal remedies would discourage innovation and invention which is contrary to public policy goals. Furthermore, he noted that there were other ways available through which unpaid taxes could be collected without barring suits altogether; therefore it did not make sense to deny relief simply because some tax payments may still be outstanding at any given time.