In Hayward v. Andrews, 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 between the plaintiff, Hayward, and the defendant, Andrews. Hayward had agreed to pay Andrews a certain sum of money in exchange for the use of a certain piece of land. Andrews had agreed to provide Hayward with the use of the land for a period of five years. 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. The Court also noted 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 Hayward was entitled to damages for breach of contract. The Court noted that Andrews had failed to provide Hayward with the use of the land as promised, and that Hayward had suffered a financial loss as a result. The Court held that Hayward was entitled to recover the amount of money he had paid to Andrews, plus interest.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hayward v. Andrews, 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 party who had obtained a judgment against another could not be held liable for damages caused by their efforts to enforce it if they acted within legal bounds. In this case, he noted that there was no evidence presented at trial which showed any illegal conduct on behalf of either defendant or plaintiff in attempting to collect on the judgment; therefore, both should have been immune from liability for damages resulting from their actions. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if one of them had acted illegally in collecting on the judgment - as alleged by Hayward - then she should have brought her claim directly against him rather than suing both parties jointly since only one was responsible for any wrongdoing committed during collection proceedings. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent with a call for greater clarity regarding when judgments can be enforced without fear of liability so as to avoid similar disputes arising again in future cases.