In Gray v. Blanchard, 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 a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the husband was liable for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gray v. Blanchard, arguing that the majority had misconstrued a provision of California law and failed to consider its legislative history. He argued that under the plain language of the statute, it was clear that a judgment creditor could not bring an action against another person for money due on a judgment unless they were able to prove their claim through evidence or testimony from witnesses. Furthermore, he noted that this interpretation was consistent with other provisions of California law which indicated that judgments should be enforced by execution only after all available remedies have been exhausted. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that allowing creditors to sue third parties without any proof would lead to injustice and confusion in court proceedings.