In Pennsylvania Company v. Roy, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the Pennsylvania Company and Roy, and it stated that Roy would be paid a certain amount of money for the sale of his property. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of Roy. The Court noted that Roy was of sound mind and was capable of understanding the terms of the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the Pennsylvania Company and Roy was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, supported by consideration, and not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of Roy.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Pennsylvania Company v. Roy, arguing that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not altered by judicial interpretation. He argued that the court had no authority to rewrite contracts or modify their terms, even if it was done with good intentions. The majority opinion held that an agreement between two parties could be modified when necessary to prevent injustice or hardship; however, Justice Field disagreed and maintained that such modifications were beyond the scope of judicial power. He further noted that any changes made by courts would create uncertainty in contractual relationships and undermine public confidence in them. In conclusion, he stated his belief that contracts should remain inviolate unless both parties agreed to change them at a later date.