In Gross v. United States Mortgage Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a mortgage company could be held liable for a breach of contract when it failed to pay a mortgage loan. The plaintiff, Gross, had obtained a loan from the defendant, United States Mortgage Company, and had made payments on the loan for several years. When the company failed to make the payments, Gross sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the company was liable for the breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the company had a duty to make the payments, and that it had failed to do so. The Court also noted that the company had not provided any evidence that it had acted in good faith or that it had taken reasonable steps to fulfill its obligations. The Court concluded that the company was liable for the breach of contract and ordered it to pay the amount due to Gross. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States Mortgage Company was liable for the breach of contract and ordered it to pay the amount due to Gross. The Court reasoned that the company had a duty to make the payments, and that it had failed to do so. The Court also noted that the company had not provided any evidence that it had acted in good faith or that it had taken reasonable steps to fulfill its obligations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gross v. United States Mortgage Company, arguing that the majority had misapplied existing law to reach its conclusion. He argued that under established precedent, a mortgagee who has taken possession of mortgaged property and is using it for his own benefit may not be held liable for rent due on such property unless he has expressly assumed responsibility for payment of such rent or there exists an implied agreement between him and the landlord to pay it. In this case, Justice Field noted that while USMC had taken possession of certain real estate as part-payment on a debt owed by Gross, no express agreement existed between them regarding rental payments; thus USMC could not be held liable for any unpaid rents due from Gross prior to their taking possession. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if an implied contract was found to exist between USMC and the landlord concerning rental payments (which he did not believe was present here), then at most only those rentals which accrued after they took possession would be payable by them - any pre-existing arrears were still solely attributable to Gross himself.