In Burt v. Panjaud, 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 French citizen, Panjaud, and an American citizen, Burt. Panjaud had agreed to sell Burt a piece of land in Louisiana for a certain sum of money. Burt had paid the money, but Panjaud had failed to deliver the deed to the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was made in Louisiana, which was a state of the United States, and that the parties had agreed to be bound by the laws of Louisiana. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to public policy or any other law. Therefore, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Burt was entitled to the deed to the land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Burt v. Panjaud, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of Louisiana law and would lead to unjust results. He argued that under Louisiana law, a contract could not be enforced if it had been made with an intent to defraud creditors or evade legal obligations such as alimony payments. In this case, he argued that there was sufficient evidence to show that the contract between Burt and Panjaud had been made with fraudulent intent because it involved transferring property from one party (Burt) who owed money for alimony payments to another party (Panjaud). Therefore, Justice Field concluded that enforcing the contract would violate public policy by allowing debtors like Burt to avoid their legal obligations through contracts which were entered into fraudulently.