In Hibernia Insurance Company v. St. Louis Transportation Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a contract between the two parties was valid. The contract in question was an insurance policy issued by Hibernia Insurance Company to St. Louis Transportation Company. The policy provided coverage for any losses incurred by St. Louis Transportation Company due to the negligence of its employees. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous and that the parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was not against public policy and that the parties had acted in good faith. The Court also held that the insurance policy was not voidable due to the negligence of St. Louis Transportation Company's employees. The Court found that the policy was valid and enforceable and that the negligence of the employees did not invalidate the policy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Hibernia Insurance Company and St. Louis Transportation Company was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the policy was not voidable due to the negligence of St. Louis Transportation Company's employees and that the parties had acted in good faith.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hibernia Insurance Company v. St. Louis Transportation Company, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under Missouri law, an insurance company could not sue a third party for damages caused by its insured unless it had first paid out on the claim itself or been subrogated to the rights of its insured after payment had been made. In this case, he noted that no such payment or subrogation had occurred before Hibernia brought suit against St. Louis Transportation Company; thus, according to Justice Field's interpretation of Missouri law, Hibernia did not have standing to bring suit against them in this instance and their complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice from court proceedings entirely.