In Vietor v. Arthur, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a shipbuilder, Vietor, and a shipowner, Arthur. Vietor had agreed to build a ship for Arthur, and Arthur had agreed to pay for the ship upon completion. However, Arthur failed to pay for the ship, and Vietor sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. As a result, the Court held that Vietor was entitled to recover damages from Arthur for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Vietor v. Arthur, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass laws regulating private contracts between individuals, as this was an area traditionally left for state governments. Furthermore, he noted that such a law could be used by Congress as a means of controlling all aspects of commerce within states and thus usurping their sovereignty over matters which should remain local concerns. Finally, Justice Field argued that if Congress were allowed to regulate private contracts it would open up numerous avenues for potential abuse or misuse of its powers at the expense of individual rights and liberties.