In Clark v. Killian, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. 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 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 also noted that the husband was liable for any damages that the wife had suffered as a result of his breach of the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Clark v. Killian, arguing that the majority had erred in its interpretation of a contract between two parties. He argued that the court should have considered all relevant evidence when interpreting the contract and not just relied on one document as they did. In his view, there was sufficient evidence to support an interpretation of the agreement which would allow for payment to be made by either party at any time during their relationship. Furthermore, he noted that if this were allowed then it would be consistent with prior cases where similar contracts had been interpreted similarly and thus should also apply here. Ultimately Justice Field concluded that since both parties could reasonably expect payment from each other under these circumstances, then it was unjust for only one party to bear all of those costs without being able to recoup them through legal means such as suing for breach of contract or damages due to non-payment.