In Farmington v. Pillsbury, 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 Farmington and Pillsbury, and it involved the sale of a parcel of land. Farmington had agreed to sell the land to Pillsbury for a certain price, but Pillsbury had failed to make the payment. Farmington then sued Pillsbury for breach of contract. 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 all of its terms. The Court also noted that the contract had been signed by both parties, and that Pillsbury had accepted the terms of the contract. Therefore, the Court held that Pillsbury was liable for breach of contract and ordered it to pay the agreed-upon price for the land.

In the case of Farmington v. Pillsbury, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider all relevant facts and evidence when deciding on their ruling. He noted that while it was true that there were no express contracts between the parties involved, there were still implied obligations based on past dealings between them. Furthermore, he argued that even if these obligations did not exist at law they should be considered as equitable considerations in this particular case due to the long-standing relationship between Farmington and Pillsbury. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since both parties had acted with good faith throughout their dealings with one another then an equitable solution should have been reached instead of dismissing Farmington's claim outright without considering any other factors or circumstances surrounding it.