Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1864 that dealt with the issue of whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused to another person's property due to negligence on their part. The Minnesota Company had sued the St. Paul Company, claiming that they were responsible for damage done to its property when one of their employees negligently operated a steamboat and collided with it while navigating through Lake Pepin in Minnesota Territory. The court found that although there was no contract between the two companies, nor any express agreement as to who would bear responsibility if something went wrong, under common law principles of tort liability an individual can still be held accountable for negligent acts which cause harm or injury even without such contractual obligations being present beforehand. Thus, it ruled in favor of Minnesota Company and ordered St. Paul company pay them $2,000 dollars worth of damages plus interest from date suit was filed until payment is made in full

In Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two companies could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of state law. The majority opinion held that the contract was unenforceable because it lacked consideration and violated state law; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that while contracts lacking consideration are generally not enforceable, there were exceptions to this rule which should apply in this case since both parties had acted in good faith and relied on the agreement as if it were validly formed. Furthermore, he noted that even though the contract may have violated state law at the time of formation, subsequent changes to those laws meant that enforcement would no longer violate any legal prohibitions or public policy considerations. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that under these circumstances enforcing such an agreement would be appropriate despite its lack of consideration or initial illegality under state law