In Cowell v. Springs Company, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The plaintiff, Cowell, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Springs Company, to purchase a certain amount of cotton. The contract stated that the cotton was to be delivered to Cowell within a certain time frame. However, the defendant failed to deliver the cotton within the specified time frame. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the defendant had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The Court also noted that the defendant had not provided any evidence that the contract was invalid or unenforceable. The Court concluded that the defendant was liable for breach of contract and ordered it to pay damages to the plaintiff. This case established that contracts must be honored and that parties must fulfill their obligations under the contract. It also established that contracts must be clear and unambiguous in order to be enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cowell v. Springs Company, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior case law and would lead to an unjust result for the plaintiff. He argued that under established precedent, a party who had been wrongfully deprived of their property should be able to recover damages from any person or entity responsible for such deprivation regardless of whether they were acting as agents or principals. In this case, he believed that since there was evidence showing that both defendants had acted together in depriving Cowell of his property rights, it should not matter which one held legal title to those rights; either defendant could be liable for damages caused by their joint actions. Furthermore, Justice Field noted how allowing only one defendant to bear responsibility while exonerating another would create an inequitable situation where two parties are jointly responsible but only one is made accountable financially. As such, he concluded that both defendants should have been found liable and urged reversal of the judgment below on these grounds alone.