In Matthews v. Machine Company, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Matthews, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Machine Company, to purchase a machine for a certain price. Matthews had paid the full amount of the purchase price, but the machine was never delivered. Matthews then sued Machine Company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, meaning that both parties had an obligation to perform under the contract. The Court also held that Matthews was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court found that Matthews was entitled to the difference between the purchase price and the value of the machine that he had received, as well as any other damages that he had suffered as a result of the breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Matthews and Machine Company was valid and enforceable, and that Matthews was entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Matthews v. Machine Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a patentee could not be deprived of his exclusive right by any act or omission on his part unless it amounted to an abandonment or surrender of such right. In this case, he found no evidence that Matthews had abandoned or surrendered his rights as patentee; rather, he had simply failed to pay taxes due on them. Justice Field further noted that if nonpayment of taxes were sufficient grounds for forfeiture then all patents issued by Congress would be subject to revocation at any time without notice and regardless of whether they had been used in good faith or not. This outcome was unacceptable because it violated both natural justice and statutory law which provided for payment plans when tax debts became too large for immediate payment. As such, Justice Field concluded that there should have been a judgment in favor of Matthews' estate since there was no evidence presented showing either express abandonment or implied surrendering from him regarding his patent rights