Colton v. Colton was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of a husband's right to control his wife's property. The case involved a dispute between a husband and wife over the ownership of certain property. The husband, William Colton, had purchased the property in question with his own funds, but his wife, Mary Colton, claimed that the property was hers. The Supreme Court held that the husband had the right to control his wife's property, and that the wife had no right to claim ownership of the property. The Court also held that the husband had the right to dispose of the property as he saw fit. The case was significant in that it established the principle that a husband had the right to control his wife's property, and that the wife had no right to claim ownership of the property. This ruling was later used to support the notion that a husband had the right to control his wife's property, even if the wife had contributed to the purchase of the property. The case also established the principle that a husband had the right to dispose of his wife's property as he saw fit. This ruling was later used to support the notion that a husband had the right to control his wife's property, even if the wife had contributed to the purchase of the property.

In Colton v. Colton, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a husband could be held liable for his wife's debts incurred before marriage. The majority opinion found that he could not, as it would violate public policy and the common law principle of marital unity. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, that there is no legal basis for such an exemption; and secondly, that allowing husbands to escape liability in these cases would create an incentive for them to abandon their wives when they become financially burdened by premarital debt. He argued that if husbands were allowed to avoid responsibility in such situations then creditors would have little recourse against those who had contracted with women prior to marriage and thus be unable to collect what was owed them. In conclusion, Justice Field believed the majority’s ruling should be overturned because it did not take into account either existing legal principles or potential consequences of its decision.