Express Company v. Ware was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between a railroad company and a shipper was valid. The case involved a dispute between the Express Company and the Ware family. The Express Company had contracted with the Ware family to transport goods from one place to another. The Ware family refused to pay the Express Company for the services, claiming that the contract was invalid. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had received something of value in exchange for their agreement. The Court also found that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not violate any laws or regulations. The Court also held that the Express Company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court found that the Express Company had suffered a loss due to the breach and was entitled to be compensated for that loss. The Court also held that the Express Company was entitled to interest on the damages, as the breach had caused the Express Company to suffer a financial loss. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the Express Company and the Ware family was valid and enforceable. The Court also held that the Express Company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, as well as interest on the damages.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Express Company v. Ware, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior precedent and would lead to a "most mischievous" result. He argued that under existing law, an express company could not be held liable for damages caused by its negligence unless it had assumed control of goods entrusted to it for delivery. In this case, he noted that there was no evidence presented at trial indicating any such assumption of control or agreement between the parties regarding liability; therefore, he concluded that the express company should not have been found liable for damages resulting from its alleged negligence. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if companies were held responsible without having assumed control over goods entrusted to them then they would be exposed to unlimited liability which could potentially bankrupt them and cause great harm both economically and socially.