In Nebraska City vs. Campbell, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had failed to fulfill their obligations under it. The case involved a dispute over an agreement made by John Campbell and William H. Brown in which Brown agreed to build a sawmill for Campbell on his property in exchange for $1,000 and other considerations. After completing construction of the mill, Brown sued Campbell for non-payment of the money owed him according to their agreement. The court held that contracts are binding upon both parties regardless of any failure or refusal by either party to perform its part; therefore, they found that Brown was entitled to payment from Campbell as per their original agreement. This decision established precedent regarding contractual obligations and set forth important principles about how such agreements should be interpreted going forward into future cases involving similar issues

In Nebraska City v. Campbell, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and would encourage similar violations of state laws in the future. Justice Grier dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts are sacred agreements between individuals and should not be interfered with by government entities unless there is clear evidence of fraud or illegality on behalf of one party involved in making the agreement. He argued that since no such evidence existed here, enforcing this contract would have been consistent with both justice and morality as well as being beneficial for society at large by encouraging people to enter into binding agreements without fear they will later be invalidated due to some technicality or legal loophole.