In Clay & Wife v. Field, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a husband and wife could sue a third party for damages caused by the husband's negligence. The husband had been injured in an accident while working on a farm owned by the third party. The wife sought to recover damages for the loss of her husband's services and companionship. The Supreme Court held that the wife could not recover damages for the loss of her husband's services and companionship. The Court reasoned that the husband's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, and that the wife's claim was based on the husband's negligence. The Court further held that the wife's claim was barred by the doctrine of contributory negligence, which holds that a person cannot recover damages for an injury caused by his own negligence. The Court also held that the wife could not recover damages for the loss of her husband's companionship. The Court reasoned that the husband's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, and that the wife's claim was based on the husband's negligence. The Court further held that the wife's claim was barred by the doctrine of contributory negligence, which holds that a person cannot recover damages for an injury caused by his own negligence. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the wife could not recover damages for the loss of her husband's services and companionship, or for the loss of his companionship, due to the doctrine of contributory negligence.

In Clay & Wife v. Field, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a husband and wife could be held jointly liable for debts incurred by one of them prior to their marriage. The majority opinion found that they could not, as it would violate public policy against encouraging fraudulent marriages in order to avoid debt liability. Justice Miller dissented from this decision, arguing that while he agreed with the majority's sentiment about discouraging fraudulently contracted marriages, there were no laws or statutes prohibiting such unions in this case and thus joint liability should have been imposed on both parties. He further argued that if a married couple is allowed to benefit from each other's assets after marriage then they should also be responsible for any pre-existing liabilities of either party; otherwise it would create an unfair advantage over unmarried couples who are solely responsible for their own debts regardless of how long they had been living together before entering into matrimony.