Chew v. Brumagen was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between a man named Chew and a woman named Brumagen. Chew had agreed to pay Brumagen a certain amount of money in exchange for her services as a seamstress. However, when Chew failed to pay the agreed-upon amount, Brumagen sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Brumagen, finding that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the contract was binding and that Chew was obligated to pay the agreed-upon amount. The Court also noted that the contract was not invalidated by the fact that it was not in writing, as oral contracts were still legally binding at the time. The ruling in Chew v. Brumagen established that oral contracts were legally binding and enforceable in the United States. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has been used to support the validity of oral contracts in a variety of contexts.

In Chew v. Brumagen, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a deed given by an individual in his lifetime could be enforced against him after his death. The majority opinion held that it could not, as such a deed would violate public policy and render all wills and testamentary dispositions nugatory. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that there is nothing inherently wrong with enforcing a contract made during one's lifetime against them after their death; rather than violating public policy, he argued that it should be seen as honoring the wishes of the deceased person who had entered into such an agreement while alive. He further noted that if contracts were not enforceable posthumously then creditors would have no recourse for collecting debts owed to them by someone who has passed away - something which he felt was unfair and unjustified under existing law.