Manufacturing Company v. Cowing was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between a manufacturing company and a former employee, Cowing. The manufacturing company had hired Cowing to work as a machinist and had agreed to pay him a certain amount of money for his services. However, Cowing had failed to perform his duties and had been discharged from his position. The manufacturing company then sued Cowing for the money they had agreed to pay him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the manufacturing company, finding that Cowing had breached his contract with the company and was liable for the money he had agreed to pay. The Court also held that the manufacturing company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court noted that Cowing had failed to perform his duties and had not provided any evidence that he had been wrongfully discharged. The Court also noted that the manufacturing company had suffered a financial loss due to Cowing's breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the manufacturing company, finding that Cowing had breached his contract and was liable for the money he had agreed to pay. The Court also held that the manufacturing company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

In the case of Manufacturing Company v. Cowing, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He noted that under existing legal principles, when an individual has been wrongfully deprived of their property by another party, they have a right to recover damages for such deprivation from any person who knowingly received or assisted in receiving it. In this case, Cowing had taken possession of goods belonging to Manufacturing Company without its consent and with knowledge that it was doing so wrongfully; thus, according to Justice Field's interpretation of the law at hand, Manufacturing Company should be able to recover damages from him even if he did not personally benefit from his actions. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that since there were no special circumstances present which would justify denying relief in this instance (such as fraud on behalf of either party), then justice demanded that Manufacturing Company receive compensation for its losses due to Cowing’s wrongful conduct.