In Crilley v. Burrows, 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 her support. 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 it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court held that the contract was binding on both parties, and that the husband was liable for the payments he had failed to make. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the husband and wife was valid and enforceable, and that the husband was liable for the payments he had failed to make. The Court's decision established that contracts between spouses are valid and enforceable, and that they are not against public policy.

In the case of Crilley v. Burrows, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and should be declared void by the court. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while it may have been illegal for these two parties to enter into such a contract under state law, there was no reason why they should not still be allowed to do so at common law. He argued that since both parties had voluntarily entered into the agreement with full knowledge of its illegality and without any fraud or misrepresentation on either side, then their rights as individuals should take precedence over any public policy considerations which might otherwise prevent them from enforcing their contractual obligations. In his view, allowing courts to declare contracts void solely because they violated some statute would lead to uncertainty in commercial transactions and undermine people's trust in private agreements more generally.