In Milner v. Meek, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the wife was entitled to the payments she was promised.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Milner v. Meek, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass laws regulating private property rights within state boundaries, as this was an issue reserved for states alone. Furthermore, he noted that if such legislation were allowed then it could be used by Congress as a means of controlling state governments and their citizens without any constitutional basis or limitation on its powers. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while there may have been some good intentions behind the law in question, it should not be upheld simply because of those intentions but rather based upon whether or not it is constitutionally permissible.