In the case of Pacific Express Company v. Malin, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between a railroad company and a shipper was valid. The contract in question was between the Pacific Express Company and the Malin family, who were shipping a large amount of goods from California to Oregon. The contract stated that the Pacific Express Company would transport the goods for a certain fee, and that the Malin family would be responsible for any damages that occurred during the shipment. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, as the Malin family had received a fair price for the shipment and had not been taken advantage of. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the Pacific Express Company and the Malin family was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, as the Malin family had received a fair price for the shipment and had not been taken advantage of.

In the case of Pacific Express Company v. Malin, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to uphold an injunction issued by a lower court preventing Pacific Express from collecting on its debt owed by Malin. According to Field, this was in violation of Article I Section 10 Clause 1 of the Constitution which states that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. He further argued that since California had passed such a law (the statute under which Malin sought protection) it was unconstitutional and should be struck down as void ab initio (from inception). Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some valid public policy reasons for allowing such laws they must still comply with constitutional requirements and not violate them outright. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that upholding this injunction would set a dangerous precedent whereby creditors could be deprived of their rights without due process or just compensation - something he felt strongly violated both federal and state constitutions alike.