In the case of King v. Gallun & Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, King, had entered into a contract with the defendants, Gallun & Another, to purchase a certain amount of land. The contract stated that the defendants would pay King a certain amount of money for the land, and that King would pay the defendants a certain amount of money for the land. The defendants argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the contract was binding and that the parties were obligated to fulfill their respective obligations under the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not invalidated by the fact that it was not in writing. The Court's decision in this case established that a contract does not need to be in writing in order to be valid and enforceable. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the validity of oral contracts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in King v. Gallun & Another, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under California law, a married woman had no right to her husband's property unless it was specifically granted by statute or contract. In this case, there were no such statutes or contracts granting Mrs. King any rights to her husband's estate; therefore she had no legal claim on it after his death. Justice Field further argued that even if Mrs. King did have some sort of equitable interest in her deceased husband’s estate, she would still not be entitled to recover damages from Mr. Gallun for wrongfully withholding them since he acted without knowledge of any such interest and thus could not be held liable for his actions as a matter of law or equity principles established by California courts at the time of trial.. Finally, Justice Field concluded that while he sympathized with Mrs. King’s plight due to the unfortunate circumstances surrounding her late husband’s death and subsequent lack of financial support from him during their marriage years prior, ultimately justice must prevail over sympathy when deciding cases before courtrooms across America - regardless how heartbreaking they may seem - so as to ensure fairness is maintained throughout our judicial system moving forward into future generations