Bouldin v. Alexander was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between William Bouldin and William Alexander, in which Bouldin agreed to pay Alexander a certain sum of money in exchange for Alexander's promise to convey certain real estate to Bouldin. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was supported by consideration, which is an essential element of a valid contract. The Court found that the consideration was sufficient because Bouldin had agreed to pay a certain sum of money in exchange for Alexander's promise to convey the real estate. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, as Alexander had promised to convey the real estate to Bouldin, and Bouldin had promised to pay a certain sum of money in exchange for that promise. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of a seal, as the parties had not agreed to use a seal. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Bouldin was entitled to the real estate that Alexander had promised to convey.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bouldin v. Alexander, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of state law. He argued that under Mississippi law, as it existed at the time of this case, an executor had no authority to bring suit against a third party for damages suffered by an estate due to their negligence or misconduct. Furthermore, he noted that even if such authority did exist under state law, there was nothing in either federal common or statutory law which would allow for such action and thus any claim should have been dismissed without prejudice so as not to create new rights where none previously existed. In conclusion Justice Field stated his belief that allowing suits like these could lead to potential abuse and confusion within both state and federal courts alike since they would be required to interpret laws differently depending on whether it is brought by an individual or an executor acting on behalf of another person's estate.