In MeGuire v. Corwine, 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 MeGuire and Corwine, in which Corwine agreed to pay MeGuire a certain sum of money in exchange for the use of a certain piece of land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties were of sound mind and had the capacity to enter into a contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court found that there was no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between MeGuire and Corwine was valid and enforceable.

In the case of MeGuire v. Corwine, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider certain facts. He noted that under Missouri state law, an executor was required to pay debts out of estate assets before distributing them among heirs; however, this requirement did not apply when there were no assets left after paying off creditors. In this case, all of the estate's assets had been used up by creditors prior to distribution among heirs and thus it was improper for Corwine (the executor) to be held liable for any remaining debt obligations from his own personal funds. Furthermore, Field pointed out that even if Corwine had acted negligently or improperly with regard to managing the estate's finances during his tenure as executor - which he denied - such negligence would have only resulted in liability against him personally rather than against other beneficiaries who received their inheritance without fault on their part.