In the case of Hyndman v. Roots, 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 Hyndman and Roots, and it stated that Hyndman would pay Roots a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain number of acres of 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 the part of either party. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Hyndman and Roots was valid and enforceable.

In Hyndman v. Roots, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced despite being made in violation of state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and thus was voidable by either party. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts are to be respected as long as they do not violate federal or constitutional laws, regardless of any state laws which may have been broken in their formation. He argued that if a court were to invalidate all contracts which had been formed in violation of some state law then there would no longer exist any certainty or stability for contractual relations between individuals and businesses within the United States. Furthermore, he noted that such an approach would lead to chaos since it is impossible for anyone entering into a contract to know every single applicable local statute before doing so; thus making them vulnerable to having their agreements voided at any time on account of violating some obscure rule without even knowing it existed beforehand.