In Hartranft v. Wiegmann, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between Hartranft and Wiegmann, in which Hartranft agreed to pay Wiegmann a certain sum of money in exchange for Wiegmann's services. Hartranft argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing, while Wiegmann argued that the contract was valid because it had been orally agreed upon. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was binding because it had been agreed upon by both parties, and that the lack of a written agreement did not invalidate the contract. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in reliance on the contract, and that Hartranft had received the benefit of Wiegmann's services. As such, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hartranft v. Wiegmann, arguing that the majority's decision was wrong and should be reversed. He argued that under Pennsylvania law, a party who had been served with process but failed to appear at trial could not later challenge the judgment on appeal unless they showed good cause for their absence. In this case, he argued that there was no evidence of any such good cause being shown by either defendant and therefore both defendants were barred from challenging the judgment against them on appeal. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if one of the defendants did have some valid excuse for failing to appear at trial, it would still not affect his ability to challenge an erroneous ruling made during proceedings or other errors which occurred prior to service of process upon him; thus he concluded that neither defendant should be allowed to contest the validity of their judgments on appeal due solely to their failure to appear at trial without showing good cause for doing so.