Montgomery v. Samory was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Montgomery and Samory, in which Montgomery agreed to pay Samory a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of property. Samory had previously agreed to sell the property to Montgomery, but the contract was never finalized. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Montgomery and Samory was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Samory had already agreed to sell the property to Montgomery. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as both parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court further held that the contract was not void for lack of capacity, as both parties were competent to enter into a contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Montgomery and Samory was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, was not void for lack of consideration, mutuality of obligation, or capacity, and was therefore valid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Montgomery v. Samory, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or logic. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and interpreted according to its plain meaning, regardless of whether it is beneficial to one party over another. In this case, he believed that the contract between Montgomery and Samory clearly stated that if either party failed to perform their obligations under the agreement then they would forfeit any rights they had acquired through it. Therefore, he concluded that since Montgomery had breached his obligation under the contract by failing to pay rent for several years prior to filing suit against Samory for possession of property owned by him, he could not now claim an interest in said property based on his original agreement with her. Justice Field further noted how allowing such claims would lead to unjust results where people are allowed “to take advantage of their own wrong” which goes against established legal principles and public policy considerations alike.