In Ball v. Langles, the United States Supreme Court 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 month 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Ball v. Langles, arguing that the majority had misapplied a previous Supreme Court decision to reach their conclusion. He argued that while it was true that an individual could not be held liable for damages caused by another person's negligence if they were not present at the time of injury, this case was different because there was evidence of active participation on behalf of Ball in causing harm to Langles' property. In particular, he noted that Ball had actively directed his servants and agents to cut down trees belonging to Langles without permission or legal authority. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since there was clear evidence of direct involvement from Ball himself in causing damage to Langles' property, he should have been held liable for any resulting losses suffered by him as a result.