This case was a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of goods. The plaintiff, Jenkins, was the assignee of a contract between the defendant, Loewenthal, and a third party. The contract was for the sale of goods, and the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract. The defendant argued that the contract was void because it had been made without consideration. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, as the defendant had received a benefit from the contract. The Court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the defendant's breach of the contract. The Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods, as well as any other damages that the plaintiff had suffered as a result of the defendant's breach.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jenkins, Assignee v. Loewenthal & Another. He argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of state law and an incorrect interpretation of federal bankruptcy law. The case involved a dispute between two creditors over who should receive payment from a debtor's estate under the Bankruptcy Act of 1867. Justice Field believed that Congress had intended to give priority to those creditors whose claims were filed first with the court, regardless of whether they were secured or unsecured debts; however, he noted that this intention was not clearly expressed in either statute or regulation governing bankruptcy proceedings at the time. As such, he concluded that it would be inappropriate for courts to make their own interpretations as to which creditor should have precedence when deciding how assets are distributed among them during bankruptcy proceedings.