In the case of Bartholow v. Bean, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Bartholow and Bean, and it stated that Bean would pay Bartholow a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it did not violate any laws or regulations. As such, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Bean was obligated to pay Bartholow the amount of money specified in the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bartholow v. Bean, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He believed that a contract between two parties is binding and enforceable unless it can be proven to have been made under duress or fraud. In this case, he argued that there was no evidence of either duress or fraud on behalf of either party when they entered into their agreement for the sale of land; therefore, it should not have been set aside by the court as invalid. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if one party had acted improperly during negotiations leading up to signing the contract—which he did not believe happened here—the remedy would only extend so far as awarding damages rather than setting aside an otherwise valid agreement altogether. As such, he concluded his dissent by urging reversal of the lower court's ruling and upholding both parties' rights to uphold their contractual obligations with each other