In Machine Company v. Gage, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Machine Company, had contracted with the defendant, Gage, to build a machine for a certain price. Gage had agreed to pay the full amount upon completion of the machine. However, Gage refused to pay the full amount, claiming that the machine was not built according to the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that Gage had agreed to pay the full amount upon completion of the machine. The Court also found that Gage had failed to prove that the machine was not built according to the contract. Therefore, the Court held that Gage was liable for the full amount of the contract.

In Machine Company v. Gage, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because it violated public policy and thus should not be upheld by the court. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion on public policy grounds, he believed that contracts which violate state laws should still be enforced if they are fair and reasonable to both parties involved. He argued further that such contracts can provide stability for those engaging in business transactions as well as promote economic growth through increased investment opportunities. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that upholding these types of agreements would benefit society more than invalidating them due to their potential for creating beneficial outcomes despite their illegality under certain circumstances.