In Butterfield v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Butterfield and Smith, and it stated that Butterfield would pay Smith a certain amount of money in exchange for Smith's services. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court found 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 of sound mind and had the capacity to enter into a contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation. The Court found that there was no evidence that either party had made any false statements or had acted in bad faith. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Butterfield and Smith was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Butterfield v. Smith, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that it is not within the court's authority to review decisions made by state legislatures regarding their own internal affairs, such as how they choose members of Congress or other officers. The Constitution only grants Congress this power, and any attempt by courts to interfere with these matters would be an unconstitutional usurpation of congressional authority. Furthermore, he noted that if courts were allowed to intervene in such matters then there could be no limit on what kinds of cases they could hear; thus leading them into areas where they have no jurisdiction or expertise. Finally, Justice Field argued that even if the Court did have jurisdiction over this case it should still affirm the lower court’s ruling because there was sufficient evidence presented at trial for a jury verdict against Smith and his actions had been found illegal under both federal law and New York State law at issue in this case