In Hanrick v. Barton, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between a farmer, Barton, and a miller, Hanrick. Barton had agreed to sell his wheat to Hanrick at a certain price, and Hanrick had agreed to pay Barton for the wheat. However, Barton had failed to deliver the wheat, and Hanrick sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract, and that Barton had failed to fulfill his obligations. The Court also noted that Barton had not raised any defenses to the contract, and that he had not provided any evidence that the contract was invalid. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Barton was liable for breach of contract. The Court ordered Barton to pay Hanrick the amount of money that was agreed upon in the contract. This case established the principle that contracts are binding and enforceable, and that parties must fulfill their obligations under the contract.

In the case of Hanrick v. Barton, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He believed that under the law, an individual who had been wrongfully dispossessed of their property could recover damages from those responsible for such dispossession even if they were not able to prove actual damage or loss suffered as a result. In this particular case, Hanrick had been wrongfully deprived of his right to use certain land by Barton and others acting on his behalf; however, since no actual damage or loss was proven at trial, the majority held that Hanrick could not recover any damages from them. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion because it would allow individuals like Barton to escape liability for wrongful acts simply because there is no proof of tangible harm caused by their actions. He argued instead that when someone has acted unlawfully in depriving another person of their rights over property then they should be liable regardless whether any specific losses can be demonstrated or not.