In Ratterman v. Western Union Telegraph Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a telegraph company was liable for damages caused by its negligence in delivering a telegram. The plaintiff, Ratterman, had sent a telegram to a third party, instructing them to purchase a certain amount of stock. The telegram was delivered late, and the stock had already been purchased by the time it arrived. As a result, Ratterman suffered a financial loss. The Supreme Court held that the telegraph company was liable for damages caused by its negligence in delivering the telegram. The Court reasoned that the telegraph company had a duty to deliver the telegram in a timely manner, and that it had breached that duty by delivering the telegram late. The Court also held that the telegraph company was liable for the damages caused by its negligence, even though the plaintiff had not paid for the telegram in advance. The Court's decision in Ratterman v. Western Union Telegraph Company established that telegraph companies are liable for damages caused by their negligence in delivering telegrams. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of telegraph law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Ratterman v. Western Union Telegraph Company, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of contract law principles. He argued that under New York law, which governed this case, contracts are only binding if they have been accepted by both parties and not just one party as had occurred here. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were an acceptance of the terms proposed by Western Union Telegraph Company (WUTC), it would still be invalid because WUTC did not provide any consideration for their offer to Ratterman; thus making it unenforceable according to New York contract law principles. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his position that WUTC could not enforce its agreement with Ratterman due to lack of mutual assent and consideration from both parties involved in the transaction.