In the case of Caperton v. Ballard, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The plaintiff, Caperton, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Ballard, to purchase a tract of land. Ballard had agreed to sell the land for a certain price, but then refused to honor the contract. Caperton sued Ballard for breach of contract, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Caperton and Ballard was valid and enforceable. The Court found 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 found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Ballard had promised to sell the land for a certain price and Caperton had agreed to pay that price. The Court also held that Ballard was liable for breach of contract, as he had failed to honor the agreement. The Court found that Ballard had acted in bad faith by refusing to honor the contract, and that Caperton was entitled to damages for the breach. In the end, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Caperton and Ballard was valid and enforceable, and that Ballard was liable for breach of contract. The Court's decision established that contracts must be honored and that parties who fail to do so can be held liable for damages.

In the case of Caperton v. Ballard, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a judgment rendered by an Alabama court should be overturned due to bias on behalf of one of its judges. The majority opinion held that there was no evidence to suggest that any such bias existed and thus upheld the lower court's decision. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that it was clear from the facts presented in this case that Judge Moore had been influenced by his relationship with one party involved in litigation before him; namely, Mr. Ballard who he had previously served as counsel for during another legal dispute prior to presiding over Caperton’s suit against him. As such, Justice Field concluded that it would have been improper for Judge Moore to preside over this particular trial given his previous involvement with Mr. Ballard and recommended overturning the lower court’s decision accordingly