In the case of Huntington v. Palmer, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a tenant had the right to remove fixtures from a leased property. The tenant, Huntington, had leased a property from Palmer and had installed certain fixtures on the property. When the lease expired, Huntington attempted to remove the fixtures, but Palmer objected. The Supreme Court held that the tenant had the right to remove the fixtures, as long as they were not permanently affixed to the property. The Court reasoned that the tenant had a right to the fixtures, as they were installed with the intention of being removed at the end of the lease. The Court also noted that the tenant had a right to the fixtures, as they had been paid for by the tenant. The Court concluded that the tenant had the right to remove the fixtures, as long as they were not permanently affixed to the property.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Huntington v. Palmer, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that courts should not be allowed to interfere with private contracts between individuals, as it is outside their jurisdiction and could potentially open up a floodgate of litigation over such matters. Furthermore, he noted that if this case were decided in favor of the plaintiff then there would be no limit on what kinds of contracts could be subject to court review or interference by judges. Finally, Justice Field argued that allowing courts to meddle with private agreements between parties would undermine public confidence in contract law and create an atmosphere where people are less likely to enter into binding arrangements for fear they will later become embroiled in costly legal disputes.