In Cavender v. Cavender, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a husband could be held liable for the debts of his wife. The case involved a dispute between a husband and wife over the ownership of certain property. The wife had taken out a loan to purchase the property, and the husband had signed a note guaranteeing the loan. The wife later defaulted on the loan, and the lender sued the husband for the unpaid debt. The Supreme Court held that the husband could not be held liable for the debt. The Court reasoned that the husband had not assumed any personal liability for the debt, and that the note he had signed was merely a guarantee of the loan. The Court further held that the husband had no legal obligation to pay the debt, and that the wife was solely responsible for the debt. The Court's decision in Cavender v. Cavender established that a husband cannot be held liable for the debts of his wife, unless he has assumed personal liability for the debt. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has become an important precedent in the area of family law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cavender v. Cavender, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass laws regulating marriage or divorce, as these were matters traditionally left up to state legislatures. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress could regulate marriage and divorce through its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment then it could also interfere with other aspects of family life such as inheritance rights or parental control over children - something which was clearly beyond their constitutional authority. Justice Field concluded his dissent by warning against allowing too much federal interference into what should be private matters between individuals and states.