Neslin v. Wells 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 the plaintiff, Neslin, and the defendant, Wells, in which Wells agreed to pay Neslin a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. Neslin argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while Wells argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was supported by consideration, which is an essential element of a valid contract. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in good faith and that the contract was not against public policy. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was not required to be in writing in order to be valid and enforceable. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Neslin and Wells was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, was not against public policy, and was not required to be in writing in order to be valid. This decision established an important precedent for contract law in the United States.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in NESLIN v. WELLS, arguing that a judgment of the Supreme Court of California should not be reversed on appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The case involved an action for damages brought by Neslin against Wells and others for injuries sustained when he fell from a wagon owned by Wells while it was being driven over a bridge constructed by defendants under contract with San Francisco County. Justice Field argued that there was no error committed in this case which would warrant reversal or modification of the decision made at trial court level, as all questions were properly decided according to law and facts presented before them. He further noted that even if errors had been committed, they could have been corrected without reversing or modifying the judgment below; rather than doing so, any such errors should have been remanded back to lower courts for correction instead. Ultimately then, Justice Field concluded his dissent stating that since no reversible error had occurred during proceedings at trial court level nor did any exist which warranted reversal or modification of its decision - thus making it unnecessary for U.S Supreme Court's intervention - he believed their ruling should stand as is and be affirmed accordingly