In Gilson v. Dayton, 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 the plaintiff, Gilson, and the defendant, Dayton. Gilson had agreed to sell Dayton a certain amount of goods for a certain price, and Dayton had agreed to pay the price. However, Dayton had failed to pay the full amount, and Gilson sued to recover the balance. 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 the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Gilson was entitled to recover the balance of the purchase price from Dayton.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gilson v. Dayton, arguing that the court should not have reversed a decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. He argued that under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, it was only within certain limits that state courts could be reviewed by federal courts and this case did not fall within those limits. Justice Field further argued that even if there were some constitutional issues raised in this case, they had already been decided by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin and thus no review was necessary or appropriate for a federal court to undertake. Finally, he noted that while Congress has given power to federal courts to hear appeals from state supreme courts on questions involving diversity jurisdiction or other matters specified by law; however none such applied here as there were no allegations made regarding diversity jurisdiction nor any other matter specified by law which would give rise to an appealable issue before a federal court.