In Lincoln v. Iron Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The plaintiff, Lincoln, had contracted with the defendant, Iron Company, to purchase a certain amount of iron ore. The contract stated that the ore was to be delivered to Lincoln at a certain price. However, Iron Company failed to deliver the ore as promised. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that Iron Company had breached the contract by failing to deliver the ore as promised. The Court also held that Lincoln was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court noted that Iron Company had not provided any evidence that it had acted in good faith or that it had taken reasonable steps to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The Court concluded that Iron Company was liable for damages to Lincoln for the breach of contract. The Court also held that Lincoln was entitled to recover the full amount of the contract price, plus interest, from Iron Company.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lincoln v. Iron Company, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that Congress had not intended to grant exclusive rights to patent holders when it passed the Patent Act of 1836; rather, he believed they were meant to provide a limited monopoly for inventors so as to encourage innovation without unduly restricting competition or trade. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that any attempt by Congress to extend such exclusive rights beyond what is stated in the statute would violate both constitutional principles and public policy considerations. He concluded his dissent by noting that if an inventor could obtain an unlimited monopoly on their invention simply through obtaining a patent from the government then this would lead to monopolies which are contrary to free enterprise and economic growth.