In Continental Bank Note Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States was liable for damages caused by the destruction of certain bank notes that had been printed by the Continental Bank Note Company. The bank notes had been printed for the United States government, but were destroyed by the government before they could be issued. The Continental Bank Note Company argued that the government was liable for the damages caused by the destruction of the notes, and the Supreme Court agreed. The Court held that the government was liable for the damages caused by the destruction of the notes, as the government had contracted with the Continental Bank Note Company to print the notes and had accepted the notes as being in accordance with the contract. The Court also held that the government was liable for the damages caused by the destruction of the notes, as the government had a duty to protect the notes from destruction. The Court also held that the government was liable for the damages caused by the destruction of the notes, as the government had a duty to protect the notes from destruction, and had failed to do so. The Court also held that the government was liable for the damages caused by the destruction of the notes, as the government had a duty to protect the notes from destruction, and had failed to do so. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States was liable for the damages caused by the destruction of the bank notes that had been printed by the Continental Bank Note Company. The Court held that the government had a duty to protect the notes from destruction, and had failed to do so.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Continental Bank Note Company v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and would lead to unjust results. He argued that a contract between two parties should be interpreted according to its plain language, not by what one party may have intended or expected from it. The contract at issue stated that if any of the notes issued were lost or destroyed before maturity, they could be replaced with new ones bearing an additional interest rate of five percent per annum for each year after their original date of issue. Justice Field argued that this provision did not require payment of interest on such replacement notes beyond their original due date; rather, it simply provided for an increase in the amount payable upon maturity if certain conditions were met. Therefore, he concluded that no further payments were owed beyond those specified in the terms of the agreement itself and thus held up his dissent against granting judgment for plaintiff as requested by defendant’s motion