In Western Union Telegraph Company v. Hall, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a telegraph company was liable for damages caused by its negligence in delivering a telegram. The plaintiff, Hall, had sent a telegram to his brother in California, instructing him to purchase a certain amount of stock. The telegram was delivered to the wrong address, and the stock was not purchased. Hall sued the telegraph company for damages, claiming that the company was negligent in delivering the telegram. The Supreme Court held that the telegraph company was liable for damages caused by its negligence in delivering the telegram. The Court reasoned that the telegraph company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in delivering the telegram, and that it had breached this duty by delivering the telegram to the wrong address. The Court also held that the telegraph company was liable for any damages that resulted from its negligence, including the loss of the opportunity to purchase the stock. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the telegraph company was liable for damages caused by its negligence in delivering the telegram. The Court reasoned that the telegraph company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in delivering the telegram, and that it had breached this duty by delivering the telegram to the wrong address. The Court also held that the telegraph company was liable for any damages that resulted from its negligence, including the loss of the opportunity to purchase the stock.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Western Union Telegraph Company v. Hall, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established legal precedent and would lead to an unjust result for the plaintiff. He argued that under existing law, a contract could be made orally or through writing; thus, he believed it should not matter whether a telegram constituted written evidence of a contract between parties. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if contracts were only valid when they were in writing then many businesses would suffer due to their reliance on verbal agreements with customers and suppliers alike. Additionally, he stated that since there had been no dispute as to what terms had been agreed upon by both parties prior to sending the telegram - which included delivery of goods within two days - then those terms should have been enforced regardless of how they were communicated between them. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that while it may be true that some contracts must be in writing according to statute or common law principles such as consideration or fraud prevention; this case did not fall into any such category and therefore should have resulted in judgment for the plaintiff based on its merits alone.