In Marchand v. Livanadis, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between the plaintiff, Marchand, and the defendant, Livanadis, for the sale of a parcel of land. Marchand had agreed to pay Livanadis a certain sum of money for the land, and Livanadis had agreed to convey the land to Marchand. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to all of its terms. The Court also noted that the contract had been executed in good faith and that the parties had acted in accordance with its terms. The Court further held that the contract was binding on both parties and that Marchand was entitled to the land as agreed upon. The Court also held that Livanadis was entitled to the money that had been agreed upon in the contract. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable and that both parties were bound by its terms.

In the case of Marchand v. Livanadis, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Louisiana state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against another non-resident defendant. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and reversed the judgment of the lower court. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under Louisiana law at the time in question, courts were given broad authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents; secondly, he argued that even if there was no express statutory grant of power for such cases as this one involving two out-of-state parties, then common law principles should be applied which would allow for such suits to proceed in state courts. In conclusion therefore Justice Field believed that since both parties were properly served with process and appeared before the court voluntarily or involuntarily (in accordance with due process) then they should be subject to its jurisdiction regardless of their residency status.