In Dodge et al. v. Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between a bank and its customers was valid. The bank had issued certificates of deposit to the customers, but the customers had failed to pay the interest due on the certificates. The bank then sued the customers for the unpaid interest. The customers argued that the contract was invalid because the bank had not complied with the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the bank had acted in good faith and had not acted in a manner that would have misled the customers. The Court also noted that the customers had not raised any objections to the terms of the contract when they entered into it. Therefore, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable and the bank was entitled to recover the unpaid interest.

In Dodge et al. v. Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, 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 act of Congress that prohibited such contracts. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy as expressed by Congress through its legislation. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that enforcing the contract would not violate public policy since no one would suffer any harm or injustice as a result of doing so; rather, both parties were equally bound by their agreement and thus should receive equal benefit from it being enforced. He argued further that allowing enforcement would actually promote justice since denying enforcement would leave one party with nothing while rewarding another for violating federal law - something which he felt was unfair and contrary to public policy itself.