Edward Field brought a case against Pardon G. Seabury and others in the United States Supreme Court. The dispute arose from an agreement between Field and Seabury, where Field agreed to purchase certain real estate for $2,000 with payments of $500 each year until paid off. After making two payments of $500 each, Edward Field failed to make any further payments on the property as agreed upon by both parties. As a result, Pardon G. Seabury sued him for breach of contract in order to recover possession of the land or receive payment for it according to their original agreement. The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence presented showing that either party had waived their rights under the contract or altered its terms in any way, then Edward Fields must fulfill his obligations under said contract and pay all remaining installments due on time or surrender possession of the land back to Pardon G. Seabury as per their initial agreement .

In the case of Edward Field v. Pardon G. Seabury et al., Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for his losses, even though it had been established that no contract existed between him and the defendants. He reasoned that while there may not have been an express agreement between them, there were still certain implied obligations on both sides due to their relationship as landlord and tenant; thus, when those duties were breached by either party, they should be held liable for any resulting harm or loss suffered by the other party. Furthermore, he noted that since this was a case involving real estate transactions rather than personal property contracts - where such agreements are more strictly enforced - it would be unjust to deny recovery simply because no formal contract had been made in writing or verbally agreed upon beforehand.