In Lumber Company v. Buchtel, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a lumber company was entitled to a lien on a house that had been built with its lumber. The lumber company had supplied the lumber to the builder, who had agreed to pay for it upon completion of the house. The builder had failed to pay, and the lumber company sought to enforce its lien on the house. The Supreme Court held that the lumber company was entitled to a lien on the house. The Court reasoned that the builder had agreed to pay for the lumber upon completion of the house, and that the lumber company had a right to enforce its lien on the house in order to secure payment. The Court also noted that the builder had not paid for the lumber, and that the lumber company had a right to protect its interests. The Court thus held that the lumber company was entitled to a lien on the house, and that the builder was liable for the cost of the lumber. This decision established that a lumber company is entitled to a lien on a house that has been built with its lumber, and that the builder is liable for the cost of the lumber.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lumber Company v. Buchtel, arguing that the majority had incorrectly interpreted the contract between the parties. He argued that while it was true that a certain amount of lumber was to be supplied by Buchtel and paid for by Lumber Company, this did not mean that all other obligations under their agreement were waived or extinguished. Justice Field noted that there were several other conditions which both parties agreed upon such as delivery dates and quality standards; these should still remain binding on both sides despite only one part of their agreement being fulfilled. Furthermore, he argued against allowing an implied waiver due to performance because this would allow either party to escape from any contractual obligation simply by performing some part of it without having to fulfill all its terms. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since neither party could prove they had been damaged or prejudiced in any way due to non-performance of additional parts of their contract, then no damages should be awarded and each side should bear its own costs incurred during litigation