In Belk v. Meagher, 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 Belk, a cotton broker, and Meagher, a cotton buyer. Belk had agreed to purchase cotton from Meagher at a certain price, and Meagher had agreed to pay Belk a commission for the purchase. However, Meagher refused to pay the commission, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been in writing. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. Furthermore, the Court noted that the contract was not required to be in writing in order to be valid and enforceable. Therefore, the Court held that Belk was entitled to the commission that Meagher had agreed to pay.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Belk v. Meagher, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of state power. He argued that under existing law, states were not allowed to interfere with contracts made by individuals or corporations in other states unless they had been approved by Congress. The contract between Belk and Meagher was validly entered into in New York and did not require approval from any state legislature; thus, it should have been enforced according to its terms regardless of where either party resided at the time of litigation. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if every state could invalidate contracts made outside their borders without congressional approval then interstate commerce would be severely hindered as parties would no longer feel secure entering into agreements across jurisdictions. In conclusion, he believed that allowing such interference with private contracts violated both federalism principles and constitutional protections against impairment of contractual obligations which must be respected even when one party is a citizen of another state than where the contract was executed