Fretz v. Stover 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 dispute between two parties, Fretz and Stover, over a contract for the sale of a horse. Fretz had agreed to purchase the horse from Stover for $100, but Stover refused to deliver the horse. Fretz then sued Stover for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Fretz and Stover was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the horse. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. The Court also held that Stover was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to pay Fretz the $100 he had agreed to pay for the horse. The Court also held that Stover was liable for damages, meaning that he had to pay Fretz for any losses he had suffered as a result of Stover's breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Fretz and Stover was valid and enforceable, and that Stover was liable for breach of contract and damages.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Fretz v. Stover, a case concerning whether or not an individual had the right to bring suit against another for damages caused by negligence. Justice Field argued that while it was true that individuals could sue each other for damages due to negligence, this did not extend to cases where one party acted as an agent of another and then negligently caused damage. In such cases, he argued that only the principal (the person who employed the agent) should be liable for any resulting damages since they were ultimately responsible for their agents' actions. He further stated that allowing suits between two parties when one was acting on behalf of another would lead to confusion and uncertainty about who is actually responsible in such situations. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that if someone wanted to seek compensation from a negligent act committed by an agent of another party, they should do so through suing their principal instead of directly suing them themselves.