In Eddy v. Dennis, the United States Supreme Court 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 the rest of her life. 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 concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the husband was liable for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Eddy v. Dennis, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of the law and would lead to unjust results. He argued that under California state law, a married woman had no right to her husband's property unless it was specifically given to her by him or provided for in a contract between them. In this case, there was no such agreement between Mr. Eddy and his wife; thus she could not claim any rights over his estate upon his death. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if Mrs. Eddy did have some legal interest in her husband's estate due to their marriage relationship - which he believed she did not - then it should be limited only to those assets acquired during their marriage and not include those obtained prior thereto as they were separate from each other at the time of acquisition according to California state law on community property rights at the time of this case being decided (1877). Thus, Justice Field concluded that Mrs. Eddy had no right whatsoever over Mr. Eddy’s pre-marital assets since they were legally considered separate from hers despite being held jointly with him after their marriage per California state laws governing community property rights at the time of this case being decided (1877).