In Nickle and Another v. Stewart and Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was an agreement between two parties to purchase a tract of land in the state of Ohio. The contract was signed by both parties, but the seller, Stewart, had not yet obtained a deed to the land. The buyer, Nickle, argued that the contract was valid and that he was entitled to the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and that Nickle was entitled to the land. The Court reasoned that the contract was binding because it was signed by both parties and that the seller had not yet obtained a deed to the land. The Court also noted that the buyer had acted in good faith and had taken steps to protect his interests. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and that the buyer was entitled to the land.

In the case of Nickle and Another v. Stewart and Another, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied the law to arrive at their decision. He noted that under Missouri state law, an executor was required to pay debts from estate assets before distributing any money among heirs or legatees. The majority had held that this requirement did not apply when there were multiple executors appointed for an estate; however, Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation of the statute as it would lead to absurd results such as allowing one executor to distribute all funds without regard for creditors' claims against them. He also pointed out that if two or more persons are jointly charged with a duty by law, they must act together unless otherwise provided by statute - thus requiring both parties involved in this case (the appellants) to be liable for paying off debts prior to distribution of funds amongst themselves.