In Grant & Another v. Phoenix Life Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a life insurance policy issued by the Phoenix Life Insurance Company was valid. The policy was issued to the deceased, and the beneficiaries were his two sons. The sons argued that the policy was invalid because it was issued without the consent of the deceased's wife, who was the legal guardian of the sons. The Supreme Court held that the policy was valid. The Court reasoned that the policy was issued in accordance with the laws of the state in which it was issued, and that the wife's consent was not required. The Court also noted that the policy was issued for the benefit of the sons, and that the wife had no legal right to interfere with the policy. The Court concluded that the policy was valid and that the sons were entitled to the proceeds of the policy. The Court also held that the wife had no legal right to interfere with the policy or to prevent the sons from receiving the proceeds.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Grant & Another v. Phoenix Life Insurance Company, arguing that the Court should have reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court and remanded for a new trial. He argued that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding by a jury that an agent of Phoenix had fraudulently induced Mr. Grant into purchasing life insurance policies from them without disclosing material facts about their terms or conditions. Justice Field further noted that it was not necessary for Mr. Grant to prove actual damages as long as he could show fraudulent inducement; thus, his claim should not have been dismissed on summary judgment but instead sent back down to be tried before a jury who would decide whether or not he suffered any damage due to this deception and what amount of damages were appropriate if so found. In conclusion, Justice Field believed strongly enough in Mr. Grants case against Phoenix Life Insurance Company such that he felt compelled to dissent from majority opinion which affirmed dismissal of his claims on summary judgement