In Meriwether v. Garrett, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a slave owner, Meriwether, and a slave, Garrett. Meriwether had agreed to pay Garrett a certain amount of money if Garrett would remain in his service for a certain period of time. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that, although slavery was illegal in the United States, the contract was still valid because it was entered into before the abolition of slavery. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, as it was not an agreement to do something illegal. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Garrett was entitled to the money he was promised. This case established that contracts between slave owners and slaves were valid and enforceable, even after the abolition of slavery.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Meriwether v. Garrett, which concerned a dispute over an estate that had been left by a deceased man to his two sons and their heirs. Justice Field argued that the majority's decision was wrong because it failed to consider certain facts of the case, such as whether or not there were any other parties with interests in the estate who could have contested its distribution. He also noted that while some of those interested parties may have waived their rights due to lack of knowledge about them, this did not necessarily mean they should be denied access to justice if they later became aware of them. Furthermore, he argued that even if all relevant parties had been informed at one point or another about their rights regarding the estate, this still did not guarantee they would receive fair treatment from those administering it; thus making it necessary for courts to intervene when needed and ensure everyone is treated fairly according to law. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since no party involved in this particular case was given full consideration under existing laws governing estates and inheritance disputes - including both known and unknown claimants - then none should be allowed benefit from its outcome until all affected individuals are properly heard before a court of competent jurisdiction