In the case of The Milwaukee Railroad Co. v. Soutter and Knapp, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration or any other form of legal obligation on either side. The court held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked mutuality of obligation; in other words, there was no legally binding agreement between the parties since neither party had given anything in exchange for what they received from each other. Furthermore, even if one party did give something up as part of an agreement with another, this would still not make it legally binding unless both sides gave something up in return for what they received from each other. This decision established an important precedent regarding contracts and their enforceability under law.

In the case of The Milwaukee Railroad Co. v. Soutter and Knapp, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not performed their obligations under it. The majority opinion held that the contract in question was valid and enforceable despite non-performance by one of the parties, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling on several grounds. He argued that contracts should only be enforced if both sides have fulfilled their respective duties; otherwise, he said, there is no consideration for either side's promises or undertakings and thus no binding agreement at all. Furthermore, he noted that allowing enforcement without performance would encourage fraud and injustice as well as undermine public confidence in contractual arrangements generally. Finally, Field concluded his dissent with an appeal to equity: since neither party had fully performed its part of the bargain here, justice demanded they both receive nothing from it instead of one receiving something while another received nothing at all