In the case of Concord v. Robinson, 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 Concord, a railroad company, and Robinson, a landowner. Robinson had agreed to sell a portion of his land to Concord in exchange for a certain amount of money. However, Robinson later refused to honor the contract, claiming that it was invalid. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not involve any illegal activity. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of Robinson, as he was of sound mind when he entered into the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Concord and Robinson was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, was not against public policy, and was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of Robinson.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Concord v. Robinson, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass laws regulating labor disputes between private parties, as this would be an unconstitutional interference with state sovereignty. Furthermore, he noted that there were already existing state laws which provided adequate remedies for such disputes and thus there was no need for federal intervention. Justice Field concluded by noting that if Congress could regulate labor disputes between private parties then it could also interfere with other matters traditionally left up to states - such as taxation or education - leading to a dangerous concentration of power in Washington D.C..