In Sullivan and Others v. Iron Silver Mining Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a mining company was liable for damages caused by a fire that had been started by its employees. The plaintiffs, Sullivan and others, had owned a mine that had been destroyed by the fire. They argued that the mining company was liable for the damages because it had failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the fire from occurring. The Supreme Court held that the mining company was liable for the damages caused by the fire. The Court reasoned that the mining company had a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent the fire from occurring, and that it had failed to do so. The Court also held that the mining company was liable for the damages even though it had not been negligent in starting the fire. The Court's decision established that a mining company can be held liable for damages caused by a fire that was started by its employees, even if the company was not negligent in starting the fire. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to establish the principle that a company can be held liable for damages caused by its employees, even if the company was not negligent in causing the damages.

In Sullivan and Others v. Iron Silver Mining Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a mining company had breached its contract when it failed to pay dividends on shares of stock that were issued by the company. The majority opinion held that since there was no express agreement in the contract between the parties regarding payment of dividends, then none could be enforced against them. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while there may not have been an explicit promise to pay dividends in their original agreement, such a promise should be implied due to custom and usage within similar contracts at the time. He further noted that even if no dividend payments were explicitly promised or impliedly required under their particular circumstances, equity still demanded some form of compensation for those who purchased shares as they had done so expecting some return on their investment. Thus he concluded that shareholders should receive something for what they paid into the corporation; otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment for those running it at their expense