Sohn v. Waterson was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between a man named Sohn and a woman named Waterson. Sohn had agreed to pay Waterson a certain amount of money in exchange for her services as a seamstress. Waterson had agreed to provide the services, but had not yet done so when Sohn refused to pay her. Waterson then sued Sohn for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Sohn and Waterson was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not involve any illegal activity. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Waterson was entitled to the money that Sohn had agreed to pay her. The Court ordered Sohn to pay Waterson the amount that was specified in the contract. This case established that contracts between two parties are valid and enforceable, provided that they are supported by consideration and do not involve any illegal activity.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Sohn v. Waterson, arguing that the court should not have reversed a judgment of the Circuit Court for California. The case involved a dispute between two parties over an unpaid debt and whether or not it was secured by a mortgage on real estate owned by one of them. Justice Field argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact made by the jury in favor of Waterson, which had been affirmed by both lower courts before being overturned by this Supreme Court decision. He further argued that since no error had been committed at either trial level, this court should not interfere with those decisions unless they were clearly wrong or unsupported by any substantial evidence presented during trial proceedings. In conclusion, he believed that reversing these judgments without any clear legal basis would be unjust and set an undesirable precedent for future cases involving similar facts and circumstances.