In Union Trust Company v. Walker, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a trust company had the right to sue a third party for damages caused by the third party’s breach of contract. The trust company had entered into a contract with the third party, Walker, to purchase certain securities. Walker failed to deliver the securities, and the trust company sued for damages. The Supreme Court held that the trust company had the right to sue for damages. The Court reasoned that the trust company had a right to sue because it had a valid contract with Walker, and Walker had breached that contract. The Court also noted that the trust company had suffered a financial loss as a result of Walker’s breach, and that the trust company was entitled to compensation for that loss. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the trust company had the right to sue Walker for damages caused by Walker’s breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the trust company had a valid contract with Walker, and that Walker had breached that contract, resulting in a financial loss to the trust company. The Court held that the trust company was entitled to compensation for that loss.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Union Trust Company v. Walker, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that under California law, a mortgagee had no right to sell mortgaged property without first obtaining an order from a court of competent jurisdiction authorizing such sale. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had found this to be true and held that it applied even if there were no personal liability on part of the mortgagor or any other party involved in the transaction. Justice Field maintained that since this ruling was based upon established state law, it should not have been disturbed by Supreme Court review as there was nothing unconstitutional about it nor did it conflict with federal laws or treaties. Furthermore, he noted how allowing mortgages to be sold without judicial authorization would lead to great injustice as creditors could take advantage of borrowers who may not understand their rights fully or lack access to legal counsel when negotiating loan terms and conditions. Thus, Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that while he agreed with some aspects of the majority opinion regarding certain technical points related to foreclosure proceedings in California courts at issue here; however those matters did not change his view on whether judicial authority must always precede foreclosure sales under state law which remained unchanged despite Supreme Court review