In Gold-Washing and Water Company v. Keyes, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a water company had the right to use a certain portion of a river for its operations. The company had been granted a franchise by the state of California to use the river for its operations, but the defendant, Keyes, had also been granted a franchise to use the same portion of the river. The company argued that it had the exclusive right to use the river, while Keyes argued that he had the right to use the river as well. The Supreme Court held that the company had the exclusive right to use the river, as it had been granted the franchise first. The Court noted that the state of California had the power to grant franchises, and that the company had been granted the franchise before Keyes. The Court also noted that the company had been using the river for its operations for some time before Keyes had been granted his franchise. As such, the Court held that the company had the exclusive right to use the river for its operations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gold-Washing and Water Company v. Keyes, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established principles of law. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is an overriding public policy reason for not doing so. In this case, he argued, there was no such reason; instead, it appeared as though the court had simply chosen to ignore the plain language of the contract in order to reach a desired result. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if one were inclined to interpret contracts liberally in favor of their drafters (as opposed to strictly enforcing them), this would still not justify ignoring or rewriting clear contractual provisions like those at issue here. As such, he concluded by expressing his disagreement with both the reasoning and outcome reached by his colleagues on the Court.