In Clark v. Fredericks, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that the parties had entered into it freely and voluntarily. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that the husband had the ability to pay the wife the money he had promised. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the wife was entitled to the money she was promised. The Court ordered the husband to pay the wife the money he had promised her.

In Clark v. Fredericks, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of the parties had died before it was executed. The majority opinion held that since there were no special circumstances to suggest otherwise, the contract should not be enforceable as it would violate public policy and create an undue burden on estates. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts are generally binding upon death unless they involve personal services or require ongoing performance by both parties after death. He argued that in this case there were no such conditions present and thus the contract should have been enforced despite one party's death prior to its execution. Furthermore, he noted that if courts did not enforce these types of contracts then creditors would suffer harm due to their inability to collect debts owed them by deceased debtors who had entered into valid agreements prior to their passing away without having fulfilled those obligations yet.