Steam-Engine Company v. Hubbard was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1879. The case involved a dispute between the Steam-Engine Company and Hubbard, a former employee of the company. The Steam-Engine Company had sued Hubbard for breach of contract, alleging that he had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations to the company. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the Steam-Engine Company and Hubbard was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the performance of the contract. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. The Court also held that the Steam-Engine Company was entitled to damages for Hubbard's breach of contract. The Court found that the company had suffered a loss of profits due to Hubbard's failure to fulfill his contractual obligations. The Court awarded the Steam-Engine Company damages in the amount of $2,000. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the Steam-Engine Company and Hubbard was valid and enforceable, and that the company was entitled to damages for Hubbard's breach of contract. The Court awarded the Steam-Engine Company damages in the amount of $2,000.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Steam-Engine Company v. Hubbard, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a contract between two parties and failed to consider relevant evidence. He argued that the lower court was correct in its decision to grant an injunction against Hubbard as he had breached his contractual obligations by failing to pay for goods received from Steam-Engine Company. Justice Field noted that there were several facts which supported this conclusion, including testimony from witnesses who attested to Hubbard's failure to make payments despite having received goods on credit terms. Furthermore, he pointed out that while it is true contracts should be interpreted according to their plain language, courts must also take into account any surrounding circumstances or extrinsic evidence when interpreting them. In this case, such evidence showed clearly that Hubbard had not fulfilled his obligation under the contract and thus deserved no protection from an injunction issued by the lower court.