Pattee Plow Company v. Kingman was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1891. The case involved a dispute between the Pattee Plow Company and the Kingman family over a contract for the sale of a plow. The Kingmans had agreed to purchase a plow from the Pattee Plow Company for $50, but the Kingmans failed to make the payment. The Pattee Plow Company then sued the Kingmans for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the Kingmans were liable for the breach of contract. The Court found that the Kingmans had agreed to purchase the plow and had failed to make the payment. The Court also found that the Kingmans had not raised any valid defenses to the breach of contract. The Court held that the Kingmans were liable for the breach of contract and ordered them to pay the Pattee Plow Company the $50 that was owed. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Kingmans were liable for the breach of contract and ordered them to pay the Pattee Plow Company the $50 that was owed. The Court found that the Kingmans had agreed to purchase the plow and had failed to make the payment, and that they had not raised any valid defenses to the breach of contract.

In the case of PATTEE PLOW COMPANY v. KINGMAN, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He believed that the patentee had not been given proper protection under existing law, as it did not provide for any damages to be awarded against an infringer who used a patented invention without permission or payment of royalties. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if Congress intended to limit patentees’ rights in this manner then they would have done so explicitly when passing legislation on patents and copyrights. Additionally, he noted that allowing such infringement without consequence could lead to further abuse by those seeking to profit from another person's work without paying them due compensation for their efforts. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that “the public policy of encouraging inventors is best promoted by giving full effect to their exclusive right."