In Richardson v. Traver, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to grant a new trial in a case that had already been decided by a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Richardson, had sued the defendant, Traver, in a state court for breach of contract. The state court found in favor of Richardson and awarded him damages. Traver then appealed the decision to a federal court, which also found in favor of Richardson and awarded him damages. Traver then sought a new trial in the state court, arguing that the federal court had erred in its decision. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to grant a new trial in a case that had already been decided by a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was bound by the decision of the federal court and could not grant a new trial. The Court also noted that the state court had no jurisdiction over the case, as it had been removed to the federal court. The Court concluded that the state court had no authority to grant a new trial and that the decision of the federal court was binding.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Richardson v. Traver, arguing that the majority had erred by failing to consider whether or not a contract existed between the parties. He argued that it was necessary to determine if there was an agreement between them before deciding on any other issues related to their dispute. According to Justice Field, even though both parties were aware of each other's intentions and expectations regarding payment for services rendered, this did not necessarily mean they had entered into a legally binding contract. Furthermore, he noted that while one party may have been under an obligation to pay for services provided by another party due to moral considerations or social custom, such obligations could not be enforced through legal action unless they were supported by some form of written agreement or verbal understanding which constituted a valid contractual relationship between them. As such, Justice Field concluded that without evidence of an enforceable contract existing between the two parties in question here, no judgment should have been issued against either side and thus he dissented from the majority opinion in this case.