In the case of Philp et al. v. Nock, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiffs, Philp et al., and the defendant, Nock. The plaintiffs had agreed to pay the defendant a certain sum of money in exchange for the defendant's promise to perform certain services. The defendant had failed to perform the services as promised, and the plaintiffs sought to recover the money they had paid. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the defendant had accepted the money and had not objected to the terms of the contract. Therefore, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the money they had paid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in PHILP et al. v. NOCK, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties must be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is fair or equitable. In this case, he believed that Philp had agreed to pay Nock an amount equal to one-half of any profits made from their joint venture; therefore, he felt that Philp should have been held liable for his share of those profits despite the fact that they were not actually realized due to unforeseen circumstances beyond either party's control. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if such contracts could not be enforced as written then there would be no incentive for people to enter into them at all since they would never know what their obligations might ultimately turn out to be under varying conditions and circumstances outside their control.