In Streeper & Another v. Victor Sewing Machine Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiffs, Streeper & Another, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Victor Sewing Machine Company, to purchase a sewing machine. The contract stated that the plaintiffs would pay the defendant a certain amount of money for the machine, and that the defendant would deliver the machine to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs paid the defendant the agreed-upon amount of money, but the defendant failed to deliver the machine. The plaintiffs then sued the defendant for breach of contract. The defendant argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been signed by both parties. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, even though it had not been signed by both parties. The Court reasoned that the defendant had accepted the plaintiffs' payment and had not objected to the terms of the contract, which was sufficient to establish a valid and enforceable contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Streepers & Another v. Victor Sewing Machine Company, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider important facts of the case. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is fraud or mistake involved, which was not present here. The majority had held that because one party did not perform their part of the agreement within a reasonable time frame, it was voidable at will by either party; however Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation as he believed it would lead to uncertainty and instability in contracts going forward. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some delay on behalf of one party they could still be liable for damages due to breach of contract rather than having an entire agreement voided simply because one side took too long. In conclusion Justice Field argued against allowing any such broad interpretation as it would undermine contractual obligations and create confusion among those entering into agreements in good faith