In Long & Wife v. Bullard, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a husband and wife could sue a third party for damages caused by the husband's negligence. The husband had been driving a wagon when he collided with a wagon driven by the third party, causing injury to the wife. The husband and wife sued the third party for damages, but the lower court dismissed the case on the grounds that the husband and wife could not sue each other. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the husband and wife could sue the third party for damages. The Court reasoned that the husband and wife were separate legal entities, and that the husband's negligence did not absolve the third party from liability. The Court also noted that the husband and wife had a right to sue the third party for damages, as the third party had caused injury to the wife. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the husband and wife could sue the third party for damages caused by the husband's negligence. The Court reasoned that the husband and wife were separate legal entities, and that the husband's negligence did not absolve the third party from liability. The Court also noted that the husband and wife had a right to sue the third party for damages, as the third party had caused injury to the wife.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Long & Wife v. Bullard, a case concerning whether or not an Arizona state court had jurisdiction to hear a divorce action between two citizens of California who were married there and then moved to Arizona. Justice Field argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent as well as public policy considerations. He noted that if the Court allowed states other than those where marriages are celebrated to grant divorces, it would create confusion and uncertainty for couples seeking dissolution of their marriage contracts. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such actions could lead to multiple divorces being granted by different courts on similar grounds which would be "repugnant" both legally and morally. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that since neither party resided in Arizona when they sought a divorce from each other nor did either have any property located within its borders at the time of filing suit; therefore, it should not have been given jurisdiction over this matter by the Supreme Court.