Frost v. Spitley was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Frost and Spitley, over a contract for the sale of a horse. Frost had agreed to purchase the horse from Spitley for $100, but Spitley refused to deliver the horse after Frost had paid the agreed-upon price. Frost then sued Spitley for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Frost and Spitley was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the horse. The Court also noted that the contract was not illegal or against public policy, and that both parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. The Court ultimately held that Spitley was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to deliver the horse to Frost. The Court also ordered Spitley to pay damages to Frost for the breach of contract. This case established that contracts between two parties are valid and enforceable, provided that the contract is supported by consideration, is not illegal or against public policy, and that both parties have the capacity to enter into the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Frost v. Spitley, a case concerning an action of ejectment brought by William H. Frost against James M. Spitley over land located in California's San Joaquin County. Justice Field argued that the majority had erred in its interpretation of certain facts and evidence presented during trial, which he believed should have been considered as sufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff (Frost). He further noted that while there was conflicting testimony regarding title to the property at issue, it was not necessary for either party to prove their respective claims beyond all doubt; rather, they only needed to show enough proof so as to make out a prima facie case on behalf of their claim. As such, Justice Field concluded that based on this standard and given what he viewed as sufficient evidence presented by both parties during trial - including deeds from prior owners - Frost should have prevailed with his suit for ejectment against Spitley.