In Corcoran v. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was valid. The plaintiff, Corcoran, had contracted with the defendant, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, to build a canal. The contract provided that Corcoran would be paid a certain amount of money for the work. However, the defendant failed to pay the full amount due to Corcoran. Corcoran then sued the defendant for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous and that the defendant had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The Court also held that the defendant was liable for the full amount due to Corcoran. The Court further held that the defendant was not entitled to any set-off or counterclaims against Corcoran. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Corcoran and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company was valid and enforceable. The defendant was liable for the full amount due to Corcoran and was not entitled to any set-off or counterclaims.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Corcoran v. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that Congress had not intended for a corporation to be able to take advantage of its own wrongs by using them as a defense against liability for damages caused by it. The Court should have held that when an act is done which would otherwise give rise to legal consequences, those consequences must follow regardless of whether or not they are beneficial or detrimental to the party responsible for doing the act. Justice Field further argued that if corporations were allowed such immunity from liability then their actions could become reckless with impunity since there would be no incentive on their part to exercise due care in conducting business operations. Finally, he noted how this ruling contradicted prior case law which established clear rules regarding corporate responsibility and accountability; thus making it difficult for citizens who may suffer harm at the hands of these entities from obtaining any form of redress through civil litigation proceedings.