Henry A. Burr brought a case against Peter S. Duryee to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1863, claiming that he was owed money from a contract between them for services rendered by Burr as an agent and attorney-in-fact for Duryee. The court found that there had been no breach of contract on either side and thus dismissed the claim, ruling that it could not be determined whether or not any money was actually due to Burr from his work with Duryee since neither party had provided sufficient evidence regarding their agreement or its terms. In addition, they ruled that even if such evidence were presented, it would still be impossible to determine how much money should have been paid out without further proof of what exactly was agreed upon between them at the time when they entered into their arrangement.

In the case of Henry A. Burr v. Peter S. Duryee, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted an injunction to prevent Burr from collecting on his judgment against Duryee's property because it was based upon a contract made before the Civil War began and therefore could not be affected by subsequent events such as emancipation or war-time legislation. He further argued that if Congress had intended for contracts entered into prior to the war to be invalidated, they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation. As such, he concluded that granting an injunction in this case would amount to judicial legislation and thus violate separation of powers principles established by the Constitution.