In the case of Eyster v. Gaff et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiff, Eyster, and the defendants, Gaff and others. Eyster had agreed to purchase a tract of land from Gaff and the others, and had paid a portion of the purchase price. However, Gaff and the others refused to convey the land to Eyster, 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, and that the parties had agreed to all of the terms of the contract. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation. As a result, the Court held that Eyster was entitled to the land, and that Gaff and the others were obligated to convey the land to Eyster.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Eyster v. Gaff et al., arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of the law and would lead to unjust results. He argued that under a plain reading of the statute, it did not provide for any interest on overdue payments beyond what was specified in its terms, and thus no such interest should be awarded. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress had intended to award additional interest it could have done so explicitly within the text of the statute itself or through subsequent legislation. Justice Field also argued that awarding additional interest would create an inequitable situation where those who paid their debts promptly were penalized while those who delayed payment received extra compensation which they had not bargained for when entering into their contracts with creditors. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing this type of "unjust enrichment" went against established principles of equity and fairness and urged his colleagues to reconsider their ruling accordingly.