Mason v. Rollins et al. was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Mason, had entered into a contract with the defendants, Rollins et al., to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. The contract stated that the defendants would deliver the steamboat to Mason within a certain period of time. However, the defendants failed to deliver the steamboat within the specified time frame, and Mason sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the defendants had breached the contract and were liable for damages. The Court found that the defendants had failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract and had not acted in good faith. The Court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and that the defendants were liable for the full amount of the contract price. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the defendants had breached the contract and were liable for damages. The Court found that the defendants had failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract and had not acted in good faith. The Court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and that the defendants were liable for the full amount of the contract price.

In the case of Mason v. Rollins et al., Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to uphold an act of Congress which allowed for a patent on an invention related to cotton-picking machines. Field argued that this was unconstitutional because it violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution which states that only Congress has authority over patents and copyrights. He also noted that while there were some benefits from allowing such patents, they could be abused by inventors who would use them as monopolies in order to gain exclusive rights over their inventions and thus limit competition in certain industries. Furthermore, he believed that granting such broad powers to private individuals ran counter to public policy since it gave them too much control over something so important as innovation and technological progress. In conclusion, Justice Field felt strongly enough about his dissent on this issue that he wrote separately from the majority opinion in order to make sure his views were heard loud and clear: patents should not be granted without proper consideration given both constitutional limits as well as potential effects on public policy.