The Benefactor Steamship Company v. Mount was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between the Benefactor Steamship Company and the Mount family over a contract for the transportation of goods. The Benefactor Steamship Company had contracted with the Mount family to transport goods from New York to Liverpool, England. The Mount family had paid the Benefactor Steamship Company in advance for the transportation of the goods. However, the Benefactor Steamship Company failed to deliver the goods and the Mount family sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the Benefactor Steamship Company was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the Benefactor Steamship Company had failed to fulfill its contractual obligations and had not provided the Mount family with the goods as promised. The Court also held that the Benefactor Steamship Company was liable for damages for the breach of contract. The Court ordered the Benefactor Steamship Company to pay the Mount family the amount of money that they had paid in advance for the transportation of the goods.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in The Benefactor; Steamship Company v. Mount, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or logic. He argued that a contract must be interpreted as written and should not be altered to fit what one party believes is fair or just. In this case, he believed that the language of the contract between The Benefactor; Steamship Company and Mr. Mount clearly stated that if any part of his passage fare remained unpaid after thirty days from when it became due, then all subsequent payments would become immediately due without notice being given to him first. Justice Field felt strongly that this clause should have been enforced since it was agreed upon by both parties at the time they entered into their agreement and had never been modified since then. Furthermore, he noted how allowing such modifications could lead to confusion among other contracts with similar clauses which could ultimately undermine public confidence in them altogether.