Davis v. Friedlander was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Davis, and the defendant, Friedlander, in which Davis agreed to pay Friedlander a certain sum of money in exchange for the use of a certain piece of property. 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. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties were of sound mind and had the capacity to enter into a contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court noted that there was no evidence that either party had made any false statements or had acted in bad faith. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Davis and Friedlander was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Davis v. Friedlander, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of this Court, a party who had been wrongfully dispossessed of property could recover damages for its value from any person who had aided or abetted in such wrongful dispossession. In this case, it was undisputed that Friedlander had acted as agent for Davis' tenant and received rent payments on his behalf; thus he should be liable if those payments were made with knowledge of the tenant's wrongful possession. The majority held otherwise because they found no evidence showing actual knowledge by Friedlander at the time he received payment; however Justice Field noted that there is often difficulty in proving such facts directly since people rarely admit their own wrongdoing or culpability. Therefore, circumstantial evidence should be sufficient to prove knowledge when reasonable inferences can be drawn from it - which was clearly present here given all circumstances surrounding these transactions between Davis' tenant and Friedlander acting as her agent. Thus Justice Field concluded that summary judgment should not have been granted against Davis on this issue and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his dissent