In Burbank v. Semmes, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Burbank, a real estate developer, and Semmes, a landowner. The contract stated that Burbank would pay Semmes a certain amount of money for the right to build a road on Semmes' land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the agreement. 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 Burbank and Semmes was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, supported by consideration, and entered into by competent adults.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Burbank v. Semmes, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless it is illegal or against public policy, which he did not believe was the case here. The contract stated that if either party failed to perform their obligations under it, they would forfeit all rights and interests in any property acquired through its performance; however, Justice Field believed this clause could not be applied retroactively since there had been no breach of contract at the time of acquisition. Furthermore, he argued that even if such a forfeiture were possible under existing laws and principles of equity jurisprudence, it would still be unjust for one party to benefit from another's misfortune without providing compensation for damages incurred by them due to non-performance on their part. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that "the court has gone beyond what is necessary" in deciding this case and urged reversal of its judgment so as to restore justice between these two parties according to established legal principles