In the case of Horace H. Day v. The Union India Rubber Company, Day appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court had ruled in favor of The Union India Rubber Company (UIR). At issue was whether UIR had infringed upon one of Day's patents for an improved method for manufacturing rubber goods. In its decision, the Supreme Court found that UIR did indeed infringe on Day's patent and ordered them to pay damages accordingly. Furthermore, they held that any person who knowingly uses another’s patented invention without permission is liable for infringement regardless if it was done with malicious intent or not; this ruling established a precedent which has been followed ever since by courts across America when dealing with similar cases involving patent law violations.

In the case of Horace H. Day v. The Union India Rubber Company, Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for breach of contract from the defendant company. He reasoned that although there were some ambiguities in the language used by both parties when they entered into their agreement, these ambiguities should be interpreted against those who drafted them and thus any reasonable interpretation would lead to a finding that an enforceable contract had been formed between them. Furthermore, he noted that even if it could be established that no binding agreement existed between them at all, then under New York law (where this dispute arose) Day would still have been entitled to recover nominal damages as compensation for his losses due to reliance on what he believed was a valid contractual arrangement with Union India Rubber Company.