Kneeland v. American Loan and Trust Company was a Supreme Court case decided in 1895. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Kneeland, and the defendant, American Loan and Trust Company, over a loan agreement. Kneeland had borrowed money from the company and had agreed to pay it back with interest. However, when Kneeland failed to make the payments, the company sued him for the amount due. Kneeland argued that the loan agreement was invalid because it had been made without consideration. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the loan agreement was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the consideration for the loan was the promise of repayment, and that this was sufficient to make the agreement valid. The Court also held that the company was entitled to recover the amount due, plus interest. In the end, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the company. The Court held that the loan agreement was valid and enforceable, and that the company was entitled to recover the amount due, plus interest.

In the case of Kneeland v. American Loan and Trust Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider all relevant facts when making their decision. He noted that while it was true that there were no specific words in the contract between Kneeland and American Loan indicating an intent to create a trust relationship, there were other factors present which should have been taken into account. These included evidence of prior dealings between the two parties as well as testimony from witnesses who stated they believed such a trust existed at one point or another during their business relationship. In addition, Justice Field pointed out that even if no express agreement had been made regarding any sort of trust arrangement, this did not necessarily mean none existed; rather, it could be inferred from circumstantial evidence presented by both sides throughout trial proceedings. Ultimately then, he concluded that due to these various considerations being overlooked by his colleagues on the bench – along with some errors in interpreting certain legal principles – justice would best be served if they reversed their ruling and found for Kneeland instead