In Hervey et al. v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The plaintiffs, Hervey and others, had contracted with the defendant, Rhode Island Locomotive Works, to build a locomotive for them. The contract specified that the locomotive was to be built according to certain specifications and that the defendant was to be paid a certain amount of money upon completion. The defendant had completed the locomotive and the plaintiffs had paid the agreed-upon amount, but the locomotive did not meet the specifications. The plaintiffs then sued the defendant for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the defendant had failed to meet the specifications of the contract and was therefore liable for breach of contract. The Court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court noted that the defendant had not acted in good faith and had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The Court therefore ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the amount of money that they had paid for the locomotive, plus damages for the breach of contract.

In Hervey et al. v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties for the sale of goods could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute prohibiting such contracts. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because it violated public policy as expressed by the state law, and therefore did not create any legal obligations on either party. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion regarding public policy considerations, he felt that there were other factors at play which should have been taken into account before making their ruling. He argued that since both parties had acted in good faith and relied upon each other’s promises to enter into an agreement they should be allowed to benefit from its terms even if it violated a state statute or public policy considerations; otherwise one party would suffer unjustly due to no fault of their own. Ultimately however his dissenting opinion failed to sway enough justices as his view did not prevail in this case