In Hayes v. Holly Springs, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiff, Hayes, and the defendant, Holly Springs. Hayes had agreed to build a bridge over a creek in exchange for a certain sum of money. The contract was signed by both parties, but Holly Springs refused to pay the agreed-upon sum. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. As such, the Court held that Holly Springs was obligated to pay the agreed-upon sum.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hayes v. Holly Springs, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that the Mississippi legislature had not intended to grant a perpetual right of way when it granted permission for a railroad line to cross certain lands owned by John Hayes; rather, he believed they only meant to give temporary access until such time as those lands were sold or otherwise disposed of. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that there was no evidence in either state law or common law precedent which would support granting an easement in perpetuity without any compensation being paid for it. He concluded by stating that if this case set a precedent allowing railroads to take private property rights without paying just compensation then "the security of all titles will be seriously impaired."