In Amory v. Amory et al., 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 husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each year for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the husband was liable for breach of contract.

In Amory v. Amory et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by Thomas Amory in 1851, which conveyed certain real estate to trustees for the benefit of his children and their heirs, was valid under Massachusetts law. The majority opinion held that it was not valid because it did not comply with the statute of frauds. Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that there had been sufficient evidence presented at trial to show that Thomas intended for his deed of trust to be binding; second, he argued that even if there were insufficient evidence as to intent, then equity should intervene and uphold the validity of the deed since all parties involved had acted in good faith and relied upon its terms. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that justice would best be served by upholding Thomas' intentions as expressed in his deed rather than strictly adhering to a technical interpretation of state law.