In Ferguson v. McLaughlin, 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 an agreement between Ferguson and McLaughlin, whereby McLaughlin agreed to pay Ferguson a certain sum of money in exchange for Ferguson's promise to not build a certain type of structure on his property. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not involve any illegal activity or harm to the public. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that McLaughlin was obligated to pay Ferguson the sum of money agreed upon in the contract. The Court also held that Ferguson was obligated to abide by the terms of the contract and not build the structure on his property.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Ferguson v. McLaughlin, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under existing law, a party who has been wrongfully deprived of their property can sue for damages even if they have not yet regained possession of it. The majority had held that since Ferguson had not yet recovered his land from McLaughlin, he could not bring suit against him for damages resulting from its wrongful deprivation. Justice Field disagreed with this reasoning and noted that such a rule would be unfair because it would allow those who wrongfully deprive another person of their property to escape liability simply by continuing to possess it until after any lawsuit is brought against them. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were numerous cases where courts had allowed parties to recover damages without first regaining possession of the property at issue; thus establishing a clear legal principle which should have been followed here as well.