In Gilmer & Another v. Higley, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between the plaintiff, Gilmer, and the defendant, Higley, in which Higley agreed to pay Gilmer a certain sum of money in exchange for the use of Gilmer's land. 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 contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. 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 either party's part. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Gilmer and Higley was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gilmer & Another v. Higley, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a contract for personal services could not be enforced against an assignee unless it had been made with him or his predecessor in interest. In this case, there was no evidence that either party had any knowledge of the assignment when they entered into their agreement; thus, Justice Field concluded that neither party should be bound by its terms as against each other or as against third parties who acquired rights from one of them after execution but before performance. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such contracts to bind assignees would create uncertainty and injustice since it is impossible for contracting parties to know whether someone else may have assigned their rights without their knowledge at some point during performance of a contract.