In Winthrop Iron Co. and Another v. Meeker and Another, 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 the Winthrop Iron Company and the Meeker brothers, who had agreed to purchase a certain amount of iron from the company. The Meekers had paid a portion of the purchase price, but had failed to pay the remainder. The Winthrop Iron Company then sued the Meekers 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 the Meekers had agreed to pay the full purchase price. The Court also noted that the Meekers had accepted the iron and had paid a portion of the purchase price, which was sufficient to establish a binding contract. The Court concluded that the Winthrop Iron Company was entitled to recover the unpaid portion of the purchase price from the Meekers. The Court also held that the Meekers were liable for any damages caused by their breach of contract. The Court thus affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the Winthrop Iron Company.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a crucial point of law. He argued that when an individual is injured by another's negligence and then sues for damages, they are not required to prove their own innocence or lack of contributory negligence. The defendant must instead prove that the plaintiff was negligent in order to reduce or eliminate any damages awarded. In this particular case, Justice Field believed there was sufficient evidence presented at trial which showed Meeker’s contributory negligence; however, he felt it should have been up to Winthrop Iron Co., as defendants in the suit, to prove such allegations rather than requiring Meeker himself do so. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if Winthrop Iron Co.'s defense were successful and it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Meeker had acted negligently prior to his injury on board their vessel - thus reducing any potential award - they would still be liable for some amount due under maritime law since they did not provide him with proper safety equipment while working aboard their ship.