Otis H. Weed and Orin Sherman, copartners as O.H. Weed & Company, brought a case against John H. Crane in the United States Supreme Court. The case centered around a contract between the two parties, in which Crane agreed to purchase a large quantity of goods from Weed & Company. The contract specified that the goods were to be paid for in installments, with the first installment due on a certain date. When the first installment was not paid on time, Weed & Company sued Crane for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Weed & Company, finding that Crane had indeed breached the contract. The Court held that Crane was liable for the full amount of the contract, plus interest, and that Weed & Company was entitled to recover damages for the breach. The Court also held that Weed & Company was entitled to recover attorney's fees, as the breach of contract had caused them to incur legal expenses. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for the full amount of the contract, plus interest and attorney's fees. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of contract law today.

In the case of O.H. Weed & Company v. John H. Crane, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute prohibiting such contracts from being made by certain individuals or companies at that time. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable due to its lack of consideration and violation of state law, while Justice Field dissented on this point arguing that even though there may have been no consideration given for the agreement, it should still be enforced because both parties were aware of their obligations under it and acted accordingly in reliance upon those terms; thus making them binding regardless if they violated any laws or statutes at the time they were entered into. He further argued that enforcing these agreements would help promote good faith among citizens as well as encourage people to enter into lawful contracts which are beneficial for all involved rather than just one party taking advantage over another through an illegal agreement