The Union Trust Company of New York v. Edward Fitzgerald was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1883. The case involved a dispute between the Union Trust Company of New York and Edward Fitzgerald, a former employee of the company. The Union Trust Company of New York had sued Fitzgerald for breach of contract, alleging that he had failed to repay a loan that he had taken out from the company. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Union Trust Company of New York, finding that Fitzgerald had indeed breached his contract with the company. The Court held that Fitzgerald had failed to repay the loan as agreed, and that the company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court also held that the company was entitled to interest on the loan, as well as attorney's fees. The Union Trust Company of New York v. Edward Fitzgerald case is an important precedent in contract law, as it established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, as well as interest and attorney's fees. This case also serves as an example of the importance of upholding contracts and the consequences of breaching them.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in The Union Trust Company of New York v. Edward Fitzgerald, arguing that the majority had failed to consider the intent of Congress when it passed a law allowing for suits against executors and administrators. He argued that Congress intended to allow creditors to sue an estate's representative if they were unable to collect their debt from any other source, and thus should not be limited by state laws which required them first exhaust all other sources before suing an estate's representative. Justice Field further argued that this was especially true in cases where there was no possibility of collecting on a debt due to insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings, as those debts would never be collected without being able to sue an estate's representative directly. In conclusion, he stated his belief that Congress did not intend for state laws limiting creditor rights against representatives of estates take precedence over federal law granting such rights.