In Geekie v. Kirby Carpenter Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Geekie, had contracted with the defendant, Kirby Carpenter Company, to build a house for him. Geekie had paid a deposit of $500 to the company, but the company had failed to complete the work. Geekie then sued the company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Geekie and Kirby Carpenter Company was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, as Geekie had paid a deposit of $500 to the company. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as Geekie had a right to sue the company for breach of contract. The Court ultimately held that Geekie was entitled to recover the $500 deposit he had paid to the company, as well as damages for the breach of contract. The Court also held that Geekie was entitled to an injunction to prevent the company from continuing to breach the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Geekie v. Kirby Carpenter Company, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under common law principles of agency, a principal is liable for any tortious acts committed by an agent while acting within their scope of authority or employment. In this case, he believed there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendant had employed agents who were responsible for causing injury to plaintiff through negligence and recklessness; therefore, they should be held liable as principals regardless of whether they had knowledge or control over those agents' actions. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if it could not be established with certainty whether defendants knew about or controlled their employees’ conduct at issue here, then liability would still attach due to respondeat superior doctrine which holds employers vicariously liable for torts committed by its employees during course of employment. Thus he concluded that plaintiff deserved compensation from defendants based on these legal principles and urged reversal of judgment below in favor of plaintiff