Hendy v. Golden State and Miners' Iron Works was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Hendy, a manufacturer of mining machinery, and Golden State and Miners' Iron Works, a company that had agreed to purchase the machinery. The contract stated that the machinery was to be delivered to the company within a certain period of time. However, the company failed to make the payment on time, and Hendy refused to deliver the machinery. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was binding on both parties, and that Hendy was entitled to damages for the company's failure to make the payment on time. The Court also held that the company was liable for the cost of the machinery, as well as any other damages that Hendy may have suffered as a result of the breach of contract. The Court also noted that the company had failed to provide any evidence that the contract was invalid or unenforceable. As a result, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Hendy was entitled to damages for the company's breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in HENDY v. GOLDEN STATE AND MINERS' IRON WORKS, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court decisions and would lead to a dangerous precedent. He argued that it was not necessary for Congress to pass an act specifically authorizing suits against states in order for such suits to be brought before federal courts; rather, he maintained that such authority already existed under Article III of the Constitution. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that previous cases had established a principle whereby state immunity from suit did not extend beyond its own borders or affect citizens of other states who were suing them on matters arising within their own jurisdiction. Thus, he concluded that allowing this case to proceed without Congressional authorization would set a dangerous precedent by allowing any citizen of another state to sue any state regardless of where the cause arose and without requiring congressional approval first.