Mackall v. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a canal company was liable for damages caused by a breach of contract. The plaintiff, Mackall, had contracted with the defendant, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, to build a canal. The contract specified that the canal was to be built in a certain manner and that the company was to pay Mackall for his services. However, the company failed to fulfill its obligations and Mackall sued for damages. The Supreme Court held that the company was liable for damages caused by its breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the company had a duty to perform its obligations under the contract and that it was liable for any damages caused by its failure to do so. The Court also held that the company was not entitled to any set-off or counterclaims against Mackall, as the contract did not provide for such. The Court concluded that Mackall was entitled to damages for the breach of contract and that the company was liable for those damages.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Mackall v. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect. He argued that although a contract between two parties may be valid under state law, it does not necessarily mean that it is enforceable by federal courts. According to Justice Field, Congress had not given any authority to federal courts to enforce such contracts; therefore, they should have no jurisdiction over them. Furthermore, he stated that if Congress wanted these types of contracts enforced in federal court then they would have passed legislation granting such power explicitly. As a result of this lack of explicit congressional authorization for enforcing private contracts in federal court, Justice Field concluded that the lower court's ruling should stand and the case should be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction on behalf of the Supreme Court