In Brown et al. v. Piper, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between the plaintiffs, Brown et al., and the defendant, Piper. The contract stated that Piper would pay Brown et al. a certain amount of money in exchange for the use of a patent. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court 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 Brown et al. and Piper was valid and enforceable.

In Brown et al. v. Piper, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced due to its illegality under state law; however, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that contracts should still be enforceable even if they are illegal under state laws. He reasoned that since there is no federal statute prohibiting such contracts, then it would violate principles of freedom and liberty for them to not be upheld by the court system. Furthermore, he argued that upholding these contracts would promote fairness among citizens as well as encourage people to enter into lawful agreements instead of unlawful ones since they know their rights will still remain protected regardless of any violations against local statutes or regulations. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that enforcing an agreement which has been made in good faith despite being illegal under local laws is more beneficial than punishing those who have acted honestly but unknowingly violated certain rules or regulations set forth by states or municipalities