In Davie v. Briggs, 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 William Davie and William Briggs, and it stated that Briggs would pay Davie $1,000 for the sale of a tract of land. Davie had already paid Briggs $500 as a down payment, and the contract stated that the remaining $500 was to be paid within a certain period of time. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was supported by consideration, as Davie had already paid Briggs $500 as a down payment. As such, the Court held that Davie was entitled to the remaining $500, and that Briggs was obligated to pay it.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Davie v. Briggs, a case concerning whether or not an executor of a will had the right to bring suit against another party on behalf of his deceased testator. Justice Field argued that while it was true that courts could allow such suits when they were necessary for justice and equity, this particular case did not meet those criteria as there was no evidence presented to show any injustice or inequity suffered by the testator due to the defendant's actions. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such suits would open up many potential legal issues and complications which could be avoided if only executors were barred from bringing them in cases where no injustice had been done. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since there was no evidence of any wrong-doing on part of the defendant nor any need for justice or equity in this particular instance, then it should have been ruled out-of-order for an executor to bring suit against him on behalf of his deceased testator.