In the case of Telegraph Company v. Eyser, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a telegraph company was liable for damages caused by a telegraph operator’s negligence. The plaintiff, Eyser, had sent a telegram to the defendant, Telegraph Company, to be delivered to a third party. The telegram was not delivered, and Eyser sued the Telegraph Company for damages. The Supreme Court held that the Telegraph Company was liable for the negligence of its operator. The Court reasoned that the Telegraph Company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the transmission of messages, and that the operator’s negligence in failing to deliver the message constituted a breach of that duty. The Court also held that the Telegraph Company was liable for any damages caused by the operator’s negligence. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Telegraph Company was liable for damages caused by the negligence of its operator. The Court reasoned that the Telegraph Company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the transmission of messages, and that the operator’s negligence in failing to deliver the message constituted a breach of that duty. The Court also held that the Telegraph Company was liable for any damages caused by the operator’s negligence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Telegraph Company v. Eyser, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding upon them both and must be enforced according to its terms. In this case, he noted that there was an agreement between the telegraph company and Mr. Eyser for him to pay $2 per message sent from his office over their lines; however, when he failed to do so, they sued him for breach of contract instead of simply cutting off service as agreed upon in their contract. Justice Field argued that such action by the telegraph company constituted a waiver of any right it had under the original agreement with Mr. Eyser since it chose not to enforce its rights at once but rather waited until after services were rendered before seeking payment or damages for breach of contract - thus waiving any right it may have had under said agreement due to laches (delay). As such, Justice Field concluded that judgment should have been entered against the telegraph company on behalf of Mr. Eyser since they waived their contractual rights by failing to act promptly when services were initially requested without payment being made first as required by their own terms