In Pensacola Ice Company v. Perry, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer. The case arose when the Pensacola Ice Company, a Florida corporation, sought to enjoin the Collector of Customs for the District of Pensacola from collecting a tax on imported ice. The company argued that the tax was unconstitutional and that the state court had the authority to issue an injunction against the federal officer. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving foreign commerce and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also noted that the state court's injunction would have interfered with the federal government's ability to collect taxes and enforce the laws of the United States. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer and that the injunction should be dissolved. The Court also held that the tax imposed by the federal government was constitutional and that the Collector of Customs had the authority to collect the tax.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Pensacola Ice Company v. Perry, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is fair or not. The contract in this case stated that if either party failed to perform their obligations under the agreement, they would be liable for damages caused by such failure. In this instance, Perry had breached his contractual obligation by failing to pay for ice he had received from Pensacola Ice Company; however, Justice Field believed that since there were no specific provisions regarding interest payments within the contract itself, any award of interest on unpaid debts should have been denied as being outside of what was agreed upon between both parties. Furthermore, he noted how awarding interest could potentially encourage debtors like Perry from delaying payment indefinitely while still collecting money owed them without penalty due to accrued interest charges imposed on creditors like Pensacola Ice Company who are forced into litigation over unpaid debts.