In Lowe v. Williams, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that the parties had entered into it freely and voluntarily. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that the husband had the ability to pay the wife the money he had promised. The Court held that the husband was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to pay the wife the money he had promised. The Court also noted that the wife was entitled to interest on the unpaid amount. The Court's decision established that contracts between spouses are valid and enforceable, and that spouses are liable for breach of contract.

In Lowe v. Williams, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties from different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction in this matter because it involved citizens of different states and thus fell under federal judicial power as outlined by Article III of the Constitution. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce, they do not have exclusive control over all matters concerning citizens from multiple states. He argued that there is nothing in Article III which prevents a state court from hearing such cases when both parties agree to be bound by its decision and no other party is affected or prejudiced by it. Furthermore, he noted that allowing these types of disputes to be heard in local courts would save time and money for those involved since they wouldn't need to travel long distances for their day in court.