In the case of New Jersey Steamboat Company v. Brockett, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between the New Jersey Steamboat Company and a passenger, Mr. Brockett, was valid. The contract stated that the company would transport Mr. Brockett from New York to Philadelphia, and that he would pay the company a certain amount of money for the service. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in good faith and that the company had a reasonable expectation that Mr. Brockett would pay the agreed-upon amount. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable or against public policy. The Court also held that the company was entitled to damages for breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the company had suffered a loss due to Mr. Brockett's failure to pay the agreed-upon amount. The Court also noted that the company had acted in good faith and had not acted in a manner that would have caused Mr. Brockett to breach the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the New Jersey Steamboat Company and Mr. Brockett was valid and enforceable, and that the company was entitled to damages for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in New Jersey Steamboat Company v. Brockett, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of precedent and an incorrect interpretation of maritime law. He argued that under admiralty law, which governs matters related to navigation and commerce on navigable waters, a contract between two parties is binding even if it does not comply with state laws or regulations. The majority had held otherwise, finding that since the agreement at issue did not conform to certain state statutes regarding contracts for transportation services by steamboats, it was invalidated as being against public policy. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion because he believed there was no evidence showing any violation of public policy; rather he found that both parties were acting within their rights when they entered into the contract in question. Furthermore, he noted how such a ruling would have far-reaching implications beyond just this case - namely discouraging individuals from entering into agreements out of fear they may be later deemed void due to noncompliance with some obscure regulation or statute. Ultimately Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating emphatically: “I cannot concur in holding [the contract] void upon grounds so unsubstantial”