In Vermilye & Co. v. Adams Express Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Vermilye & Co. and Adams Express Company. Vermilye & Co. had agreed to transport goods for Adams Express Company, but Adams Express Company refused to pay for the services. Vermilye & Co. then sued Adams Express Company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the performance of the contract. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. The Court ultimately held that Vermilye & Co. was entitled to recover damages from Adams Express Company for breach of contract. The Court also held that Adams Express Company was liable for the costs of the suit, including attorney's fees. This case established that contracts between two parties are valid and enforceable, even if one party does not receive something of value in exchange for the performance of the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Vermilye & Co. v. Adams Express Company, arguing that the majority had erred by failing to consider a key issue: whether or not an express company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence when it was acting as a common carrier of goods and property. He argued that under existing law, such companies were responsible for any losses incurred while they were transporting goods and property on behalf of their customers; thus, he concluded that Adams Express should have been found liable in this case since it had failed to exercise reasonable care while handling Vermilye's shipment. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there was no legal precedent directly addressing this issue at the time of trial, courts must still interpret laws according to their plain meaning—in other words, regardless of what prior cases may have decided about similar issues—and thus find liability where appropriate based on established principles of tort law. Ultimately then, Justice Field believed that the lower court's decision should have been affirmed rather than reversed because Adams Express' failure to take proper precautions with Vermilye's shipment constituted negligence which resulted in damage being done to those items during transit.