Bissell v. Heyward was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of a contract between two parties. The case involved a contract between William Bissell and William Heyward, in which Bissell agreed to pay Heyward a certain sum of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Heyward refused to accept the payment, claiming that the contract was invalid. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Heyward was obligated to accept the payment. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was made in good faith and with consideration. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not unconscionable. The Court further held that Heyward was obligated to accept the payment, as he had agreed to the terms of the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Bissell and Heyward was valid and enforceable, and that Heyward was obligated to accept the payment. The Court's decision established that contracts must be made in good faith and with consideration in order to be valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in BISSELL v. HEYWARD, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. He argued that under South Carolina state law, Heyward had a right to redeem his property within one year of its sale for taxes due on it; this right could not be taken away by any act of Congress or court ruling. Furthermore, he argued that even if Heyward did not have such a legal right to redeem his property after it had been sold for taxes due on it, then Bissell should still not have been allowed to keep the proceeds from selling Heyward's land since Bissell himself was responsible for causing the tax delinquency in the first place by failing to pay off an earlier mortgage lien against Heyward's land when he purchased it at auction. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that justice demanded either allowing Heyward redemption rights or requiring Bissell return all profits derived from selling off his land back to him as compensation for wrongfully depriving him of ownership over his own property.