In Smith and Another v. McNeal and Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was an agreement between Smith and McNeal, in which Smith agreed to pay McNeal a certain sum of money in exchange for a tract of land. Smith had paid the money, but McNeal had failed to deliver the deed to the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that Smith had performed his part of the agreement by paying the money. The Court also noted that McNeal had not provided any evidence that the contract was invalid or unenforceable. Therefore, the Court held that Smith was entitled to the deed to the land, and that McNeal was obligated to deliver it.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Smith and Another v. McNeal and Another, arguing that the majority had misapplied a prior Supreme Court decision to reach their conclusion. He argued that while it was true that an individual could not be held liable for damages caused by another person’s negligence if they were acting as agents of each other, this did not apply in this case because there was no evidence of any agency relationship between Smith and McNeal. Furthermore, he noted that even if such a relationship existed, it would have been impossible for Smith to control or direct McNeal's actions since they were both independent contractors who acted on their own behalf without direction from either party. As such, Justice Field concluded that the majority had erred in finding liability against Smith based solely on his association with McNeal when there was no proof of any agency relationship between them.