In Neale v. Neales, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a husband had the right to sue his wife for damages for breach of contract. The case involved a dispute between a husband and wife, both of whom were named Neale. The husband had entered into a contract with his wife to pay her a certain sum of money each month in exchange for her services as a housekeeper. The wife had failed to fulfill her obligations under the contract, and the husband sought to recover damages from her. The Supreme Court held that a husband could not sue his wife for breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the husband and wife were considered to be one legal entity under the law, and thus the husband could not sue himself. The Court also noted that the husband and wife were bound by the marital contract, which was not a contract that could be enforced in a court of law. The Court's decision in Neale v. Neales established that a husband could not sue his wife for breach of contract. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains good law today.

In the case of Neale v. Neales, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed executed by a husband and wife in which they conveyed their property to each other should be enforced. The majority opinion held that such deeds were not enforceable because they violated public policy against perpetuities, which prohibited gifts from lasting beyond 21 years after the death of either party. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that there was no legal basis for denying enforcement of these kinds of deeds since both parties had voluntarily entered into them with full knowledge and understanding of what it meant. He further argued that if two competent adults wanted to enter into an agreement like this one then it should be respected as valid under law regardless of any potential implications on future generations or public policy considerations.