Knowlton v. Watertown was a Supreme Court case decided in 1875. The case involved a dispute between the town of Watertown, Massachusetts and the Knowlton family over the ownership of a piece of land. The Knowltons claimed that they had purchased the land from the town in 1845, but the town argued that the sale was invalid because it had not been approved by the state legislature. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Knowltons, holding that the sale was valid and that the town had no right to reclaim the land. The Court also held that the town was liable for damages to the Knowltons for the period of time that they had been denied the use of the land. The decision established the principle that a municipality cannot unilaterally revoke a sale of land without approval from the state legislature. The case also established the principle that a municipality can be held liable for damages if it wrongfully denies a citizen the use of their property.

In the case of Knowlton v. Watertown, Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be reversed. He believed that the court had misapplied existing law to this particular case, as it failed to consider whether or not there was an implied contract between Knowlton and Watertown regarding his employment with them. According to Field, such contracts are often created when one party has been employed for a certain length of time without any written agreement being made between them; thus, he felt that if Knowlton had worked for Watertown long enough then an implied contract could have existed even though no formal document outlining their agreement had ever been signed by either party. Furthermore, Field also argued that since both parties were aware of each other's expectations from their relationship - namely that Knowlton would continue working until terminated by Watertown - then they must have intended some sort of contractual arrangement regardless of its lack of formality. In conclusion, Justice Field disagreed with the majority’s ruling on this matter because he believed it overlooked important facts about how these two parties interacted over time and what kind of obligations they may have owed each other due to those interactions.