Bouldin v. Alexander was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Bouldin, and the defendant, 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 noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to all of its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties were competent adults, and that there was no evidence that either party was under any duress or undue influence when entering into the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Bouldin and Alexander was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, supported by consideration, and not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bouldin v. Alexander, arguing that the majority had misapplied existing law to arrive at their decision. He argued that under Tennessee state law, a contract was formed when an offer was accepted and consideration given; this did not require any form of writing or signature from either party. The majority's ruling disregarded this precedent by requiring a written agreement for contracts involving real estate transactions, which contradicted both common sense and established legal principles. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were some ambiguity as to whether such agreements required signatures or writings under Tennessee state law, it should have been resolved in favor of upholding the contract since it involved real property rights - something which is traditionally protected by courts due to its importance and permanence. In conclusion he argued that the court should have found in favor of Bouldin rather than Alexander since all requirements for forming a valid contract had been met according to existing laws on contracts and real estate transactions.