In the case of Milwaukee and Northern Railway Company v. Brooks Locomotive Works, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between the two parties was valid. The Railway Company had contracted with the Locomotive Works to build a locomotive for them, but the Locomotive Works failed to deliver the locomotive on time. The Railway Company then sued the Locomotive Works for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the Railway Company had provided sufficient consideration for the contract, and that the Locomotive Works had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The Court also held that the Railway Company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the Railway Company and the Locomotive Works was valid and enforceable, and that the Railway Company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Milwaukee and Northern Railway Company v. Brooks Locomotive Works, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of contract law principles. He argued that under Wisconsin state law, which governed this case, an implied warranty of fitness for purpose should have been applied to the locomotives sold by Brooks Locomotive Works to Milwaukee and Northern Railway Company. Justice Field further contended that even if there had not been an express agreement between the two parties regarding such a warranty, it would still be applicable as part of their contract due to its status as "the general rule" under Wisconsin state law at the time. As such, he concluded that Milwaukee and Northern Railway Company should have received compensation from Brooks Locomotive Works for any damages caused by defects in their locomotives since they were entitled to rely upon them being fit for use according to their intended purpose when purchased.