In Burbank v. Conrad, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a landowner, Burbank, and a tenant, Conrad. The contract stated that Conrad would pay Burbank a certain amount of money for the use of the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not involve any illegal activity. 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 of sound mind and had the capacity to enter into a contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Burbank and Conrad was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was supported by consideration, was not against public policy, and was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Burbank v. Conrad, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of any subsequent changes to state law or regulations regarding such contracts. In this case, he noted that there had been an agreement between Burbank and Conrad for the sale of certain real estate which included a clause providing for payment in gold coinage at its then-current value; however, after this agreement was made but before it could be executed due to delays caused by litigation over title issues with third parties, Congress passed legislation changing the standard currency from gold coins to paper money. Justice Field argued that despite these changes in federal law since entering into their contract, neither party should have been allowed to repudiate their contractual obligations as they were still bound by its terms when entered into - even if those terms no longer applied under current laws - and thus Burbank should not have been denied his right to receive payment according to what had originally been agreed upon prior thereto.