In the case of Oil Company v. Van Etten, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between an oil company and a landowner was valid. The oil company had entered into a contract with the landowner to drill for oil on the landowner's property. The contract stated that the oil company would pay the landowner a certain amount of money for the right to drill on the land. The landowner later attempted to revoke the contract, claiming that the oil company had not fulfilled its obligations under the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the oil company had fulfilled its obligations under the contract and that the landowner had no right to revoke the contract. The Court also held that the contract was binding on both parties and that the landowner was not entitled to any additional compensation for the right to drill on the land. The Court's decision in this case established that contracts are binding on both parties and that a landowner cannot unilaterally revoke a contract without legal justification. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it serves as an important precedent for contract law.

In Oil Company v. Van Etten, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a party could be held liable for damages caused by an explosion of oil stored in barrels on their property. The majority opinion found that the defendant was not liable because they had no knowledge of any danger posed by storing the oil and were unaware that it would explode when exposed to fire from a nearby building. Justice Field dissented, arguing that regardless of knowledge or awareness, liability should still attach if there is evidence showing negligence on behalf of the defendant in failing to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks associated with storing combustible materials such as oil. He argued further that even though this case involved an extraordinary event (the explosion), it did not absolve the defendant from responsibility since they had failed to exercise due care in preventing harm resulting from their actions or omissions.