Bronson's Executor v. Chappell was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between the executor of the estate of a deceased man, Bronson, and a creditor of the estate, Chappell. Chappell had loaned money to Bronson prior to his death and was seeking repayment from the executor. The executor argued that the debt was not enforceable because it had been made without consideration. The Supreme Court held that the debt was enforceable. The Court reasoned that the debt was supported by consideration because the creditor had loaned money to the debtor in reliance on the debtor's promise to repay. The Court also held that the executor was liable for the debt, even though the debtor had died before the debt was due. The Court reasoned that the executor was liable because the debt was a valid obligation of the estate. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the executor of the estate was liable for the debt owed to the creditor. The Court reasoned that the debt was supported by consideration and was a valid obligation of the estate.

In Bronson's Executor v. Chappell, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced despite its violation of state law. The majority opinion held that it could not, as contracts which violate public policy are void and unenforceable. However, in his dissent Justice Field argued that while such contracts may be immoral or contrary to public policy, they should still be enforceable if both parties have agreed to them freely and without coercion or fraud. He reasoned that since no one else is harmed by their agreement then there is no reason for the court to interfere; instead it should leave enforcement of these agreements up to the discretion of each party involved. Furthermore, he argued that allowing courts to invalidate private contracts based on their own moral judgments would lead only lead chaos and uncertainty in commercial transactions across the country