In Worthington v. Abbott, the Supreme Court of the United States considered a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiff, Worthington, had entered into a contract with defendant Abbott to purchase certain property for $1,000 and pay in installments over time. After making several payments on the debt without issue, Worthington failed to make one payment due to financial hardship caused by his business failing during a depression in 1884. In response to this failure of performance on his part, Abbott brought suit against him for breach of contract and sought damages from him as well as possession of the property back from him. The Supreme Court held that although there was no dispute that Worthington had breached his contractual obligations under their agreement when he failed to make payment due at one point in time; however they found that since it was not done willfully or maliciously but rather out of economic necessity then he should be allowed some leniency and thus only required him to pay what remained owing plus interest instead ordering full restitution or repossession which would have been more severe remedies available under law at that time given such circumstances .

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Worthington v. Abbott, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to precedent and established law. He argued that a state court could not issue an injunction against a federal officer acting within his authority under federal law, as it would be tantamount to interference with the execution of federal laws by state courts. Furthermore, he noted that if such injunctions were allowed then states could interfere with any act done by Congress or its officers under color of their authority and thus undermine national sovereignty. In addition, Justice Field pointed out that even though there had been cases where similar injunctions had been issued against private individuals for acts done pursuant to orders from government officers, those cases did not apply here because they involved actions taken without legal authority or outside of official duties; whereas in this case the defendant was acting within his official capacity as authorized by Congress. Thus, Justice Field concluded that issuing an injunction against him would be unconstitutional and should have been denied on these grounds alone.