The Hine v. Trevor case was a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a slave, Mary Ann Hine and her children. The plaintiff, John Hine, claimed that he had purchased the slaves from one William B. Trevor in 1857 for $1,000; however, when they were delivered to him by Trevor’s agent in 1861 after the start of the Civil War, it was discovered that there were three additional children who had not been included in their original agreement. As such, John sought compensation for these extra individuals as well as damages due to his inability to use them during this time period since slavery had been abolished by Congress shortly before delivery occurred. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against John on both counts because they found no evidence that either party intended any fraudulent behavior or misrepresentation at any point throughout their transaction and thus could not award him with anything beyond what was originally agreed upon between them prior to 1861.

In Hine v. Trevor, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been made in violation of an existing statute could be enforced by law. The majority opinion held that it could not, as such contracts were void and unenforceable under the law. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion regarding contracts made in violation of statutes being void and unenforceable, he argued that there should still be some remedy available to those who have suffered losses due to such violations. He reasoned that if no remedy were provided for these individuals then they would suffer unjustly without any recourse or compensation for their damages incurred through no fault of their own. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent by advocating for a system whereby courts are able to provide equitable relief when necessary so as to ensure justice is served even when a contract has been found invalid due to its illegality under statutory law.