Barrett v. Failing & Wife was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a husband and wife could be held jointly liable for a debt incurred by the husband. The case was brought by the plaintiff, Barrett, who had loaned money to the husband, Failing. The loan was not repaid, and Barrett sued both the husband and wife for the debt. The Supreme Court held that the wife could not be held liable for the debt. The Court reasoned that the wife had not been a party to the loan agreement and had not given her consent to the loan. The Court also noted that the wife had not received any benefit from the loan and had not been a party to any of the negotiations. Therefore, the Court held that the wife could not be held liable for the debt. The Court's decision in Barrett v. Failing & Wife established the principle that a wife cannot be held liable for a debt incurred by her husband without her consent. This principle has been applied in subsequent cases and is still in effect today.

In the case of Barrett v. Failing & Wife, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it was not signed by both parties. The majority opinion held that such contracts were enforceable if they had been partially performed and there was sufficient evidence of an agreement between the two parties. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that in order for a contract to be validly formed, it must have been executed with signatures from both sides or at least one party's signature and delivery of goods or services as consideration for performance under the terms of the contract. He argued that without these elements present, no legally binding agreement existed and thus any action taken based on such an agreement would not be enforceable in court.