Gorham Company v. White was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1872. The case involved a dispute between the Gorham Manufacturing Company and one of its former employees, William White. White had been employed by the company as a silver plater, and had signed a contract with the company that included a clause stating that any inventions or improvements he made while employed by the company would become the property of the company. White had invented a new process for silver plating, and the company sought to enforce the clause in the contract. The Supreme Court held that the clause was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the clause was a reasonable exercise of the company's right to protect its property, and that it was not an unreasonable restriction on White's right to pursue his own inventions. The Court also held that the clause was not an illegal restraint of trade, as it did not prevent White from pursuing his own inventions after leaving the company. The Court thus affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the Gorham Manufacturing Company.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gorham Company v. White, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under the contract between Gorham and White, it was clear that White had agreed to pay for any silverware he received from Gorham regardless of whether or not it met his specifications. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were a defect in some of the pieces sent by Gorham, this would not excuse White from paying for them as long as they were usable for their intended purpose. In addition, he pointed out that since both parties had accepted delivery of all items sent by each other without objection at first glance and no specific agreement regarding inspection prior to payment existed between them; therefore, payment must still be made according to their original agreement despite any defects found later on. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that while damages may have been due to either party depending on who breached what part of their contract first; however this did not change the fact that both parties must fulfill their obligations under said contract unless otherwise specified within its terms.