In James v. Campbell, 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 James and Campbell, and it stated that James would pay Campbell a certain amount of money in exchange for Campbell's promise to perform certain services. 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 consideration for the contract was sufficient, and that both parties had received something of value in exchange for their promises. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity or fraud. The Court noted that both parties were competent adults, and that there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of consideration. The Court noted that both parties had received something of value in exchange for their promises, and that the consideration was sufficient to make the contract valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in James v. Campbell, arguing that the Court should not have reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for California. He argued that under California law, a married woman was allowed to enter into contracts and sue on them without her husband's consent or signature. Therefore, he believed it was wrong for this case to be decided based on an interpretation of federal common law rather than state law since there were no federal statutes relevant to this case. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there had been a conflict between state and federal laws regarding women's rights as contract makers and litigants, then it would have been up to Congress - not the Supreme Court - to resolve such conflicts through legislation. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that by reversing the lower court’s ruling in favor of Mrs. Campbell due solely to its own interpretation of federal common law instead of following established state laws which gave married women certain contractual rights independent from their husbands' control or approval was inappropriate and unjustified given these circumstances