In Hurley v. Jones, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between the plaintiff, Hurley, and the defendant, Jones, in which Jones agreed to pay Hurley a certain sum of money in exchange for Hurley's services. Hurley had performed the services as agreed, but Jones refused to pay the agreed-upon sum. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned 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 noted that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not involve any illegal activity. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Hurley was entitled to the agreed-upon sum of money from Jones. The Court ordered Jones to pay Hurley the sum of money as agreed.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hurley v. Jones, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would create a dangerous legal precedent. He argued that under existing law, an agreement between two parties could not be enforced if it violated public policy or morality. In this case, he argued that the contract at issue did violate public policy because it sought to enforce a debt for which there was no consideration given by either party; thus, enforcing such a contract would encourage immoral behavior and should not be allowed. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if one of the parties had provided some form of consideration for their part of the bargain - as suggested by Chief Justice Waite in his concurring opinion - then this still wouldn't make up for its immorality since both parties were attempting to gain something without providing anything in return. As such, he concluded that any attempt to enforce such an agreement should be rejected on grounds of public policy and morality alone.