In Mitchell v. Overman, 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 to enforce the 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.

In Mitchell v. Overman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties from different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because the contract in question was made and performed entirely outside of its borders. Justice Field dissented, arguing that even though the contract may have been formed out-of-state, it still affected property located within the state's boundaries and therefore should be subject to its laws. He argued further that if contracts affecting property within a given state could not be enforced by its courts then citizens would lack protection against fraud or other wrongful acts committed across jurisdictional lines. In conclusion, he believed that allowing such cases to go unenforced would lead to injustice and chaos throughout society as people were unable to seek redress for wrongs done against them in another jurisdiction.