In Wood v. Weimar, 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 lumber company, Wood, and a railroad company, Weimar. Wood had agreed to supply Weimar with lumber for the construction of a railroad line, and Weimar had agreed to pay for the lumber in installments. Weimar had failed to make the payments as agreed, and Wood sued to recover the money owed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was in writing and had been signed by both parties, and that it was supported by consideration. The Court also noted that the contract was not illegal or against public policy. Therefore, the Court held that Wood was entitled to recover the money owed by Weimar.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wood v. Weimar, 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 citizens of different states, as it did with this case. Furthermore, he noted that such an interpretation of Congressional powers could be used by Congress to regulate any contract whatsoever between citizens from different states - including those which were not related in any way to interstate commerce or navigation - thus leading to an unconstitutional extension of federal power over matters traditionally left up for state regulation. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that if this ruling stood then there would be "no limit" on what Congress could do under its Commerce Clause powers and urged his colleagues on the Court not only reject this particular law but also take steps towards limiting congressional authority more generally so as protect individual rights from potential abuses by government actors at all levels.