In the case of Garneau v. Dozier, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Garneau and Dozier, and it stated that Garneau would pay Dozier a certain amount of money in exchange for Dozier's promise to perform certain services. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court found that the consideration given by Garneau was sufficient to support the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties were of sound mind and had the capacity to enter into a contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court found that there was no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Garneau and Dozier was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Garneau v. Dozier, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an absurd result. He argued that under Louisiana law, a contract for personal services could not be assigned without the consent of both parties; therefore, when Dozier had assigned his contract with Garneau to another party without her consent, it became void. Field further noted that even if this were not true under Louisiana law (which he believed it was), then at least one of two conditions must have been met: either there must have been some consideration given by the assignee or else Dozier should have received something from him in exchange for assigning his rights - neither of which occurred here. Finally, Justice Field concluded by noting how dangerous it would be if such assignments were allowed because they could easily become tools used by unscrupulous individuals who wanted to take advantage of unsuspecting victims like Garneau and deprive them of their rightful earnings.