In Marsh v. Citizens Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between a life insurance company and its policyholder was valid. The policyholder, Marsh, had taken out a life insurance policy with Citizens Insurance Company. The policy contained a clause that stated that if Marsh died within two years of taking out the policy, the company would not be liable for the full amount of the policy. Marsh died within two years of taking out the policy, and the company refused to pay the full amount. The Supreme Court held that the clause was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the clause was not against public policy and that it was not unconscionable. The Court also noted that the clause was clearly stated in the policy and that Marsh had agreed to it when he took out the policy. The Court concluded that the clause was valid and enforceable, and that the company was not liable for the full amount of the policy.

In Marsh v. Citizens Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between an insurance company and its policyholder could be enforced when it contained provisions that were in violation of state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts are not enforceable because they violate public policy as expressed by the legislature through statute. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that while there may be some instances where a court should refuse to enforce a contract due to violations of public policy, this case did not present one such instance. He argued that since both parties had agreed upon the terms of their agreement and neither party had been misled or taken advantage of in any way, enforcing the contract would have no negative consequences for either party or society at large; therefore he believed it should be upheld despite its conflict with state law.