This case was a dispute between Cooper Manufacturing Company and Ferguson & Another. Cooper Manufacturing Company had filed a bill in equity against Ferguson & Another, seeking to enjoin them from infringing on their patent. The patent in question was for a machine used to make paper bags. The lower court had granted the injunction, and Ferguson & Another appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the lower court had correctly granted the injunction. The Court found that Cooper Manufacturing Company had a valid patent, and that Ferguson & Another had infringed upon it. The Court also found that Cooper Manufacturing Company had been damaged by the infringement, and that the injunction was necessary to protect their rights. The Court also held that the injunction was not too broad, as it only applied to the specific infringing acts of Ferguson & Another. The Court also noted that the injunction did not prevent Ferguson & Another from making paper bags, but only from infringing on Cooper Manufacturing Company's patent. In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant the injunction, finding that Cooper Manufacturing Company had a valid patent and that Ferguson & Another had infringed upon it. The Court also found that the injunction was necessary to protect Cooper Manufacturing Company's rights, and that it was not overly broad.

In Cooper Manufacturing Company v. Ferguson & Another, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced in court. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it lacked consideration and mutuality of obligation, meaning both parties were not bound by their promises. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that there should have been an exception made for contracts which had already been partially performed on one side or another; he believed such contracts should still be enforceable even if they lack consideration or mutuality of obligation. He reasoned that since part of the agreement has already taken place, it would only make sense to allow enforcement so as to prevent injustice and uphold good faith dealings between parties who are attempting to fulfill their contractual obligations.