In Lyons v. Munson, 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 landowner, Lyons, and a tenant, Munson. Munson had agreed to pay Lyons a certain amount of money for the use of the land. However, Lyons had failed to provide Munson with the deed to the land, as was required by the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was binding on both parties, even though Lyons had failed to provide the deed. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that Munson had already paid Lyons the agreed-upon amount of money, and that Lyons had accepted the payment. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Lyons was obligated to provide Munson with the deed to the land. The Court also held that Munson was entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lyons v. Munson, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, and it cannot be set aside by either party without consent from the other. In this case, he believed that there had been no breach of contract or fraud committed by either party; therefore, neither one could unilaterally void their agreement with each other. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if a court were to allow one party to break their contractual obligations without consequence then it would undermine public confidence in contracts as well as encourage dishonesty among contracting parties who might seek to take advantage of such an opportunity for personal gain at another's expense. Therefore, he concluded that since no breach or fraud had occurred here then Lyons' suit against Munson should have been dismissed and his original claim upheld instead of being overturned by the Court’s majority decision.