Nickerson v. Nickerson was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of a husband's right to control his wife's property. The case involved a dispute between a husband and wife over the ownership of a piece of property. The husband, William Nickerson, had purchased the property in his own name and had paid for it with his own funds. The wife, Mary Nickerson, argued that the property was hers, as it had been purchased with her money. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of William Nickerson, finding that the husband had the right to control his wife's property. The Court held that a husband had the right to control his wife's property, even if it had been purchased with her money. The Court reasoned that the husband was the head of the family and had the right to make decisions regarding the family's property. The Court also noted that the husband had the right to use his wife's money for the purchase of the property, as long as he did not use it for his own personal gain. The Court also noted that the husband had the right to dispose of the property as he saw fit, as long as he did not use it for his own personal gain. The Court's decision in Nickerson v. Nickerson established the principle that a husband had the right to control his wife's property, even if it had been purchased with her money. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still used today to determine the rights of husbands and wives in regards to their property.

In Nickerson v. Nickerson, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even though it had not been signed by both of them. The majority opinion held that the contract was valid and enforceable despite the lack of signatures from both parties because there were sufficient facts indicating that they had agreed to its terms. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts must be in writing and signed by all parties for them to be legally binding. He argued that without such written evidence, any agreement made orally or impliedly would remain unenforceable under existing law since it is impossible to prove with certainty what each party intended when making an oral agreement or implying one through their conduct. Furthermore, he stated that allowing enforcement of agreements without requiring written documentation would lead to uncertainty and disputes over what exactly was agreed upon between the two sides which could result in injustice being done if either side later attempted to deny having accepted certain terms within an unwritten agreement