Pierce v. Indseth 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 Pierce and Indseth, in which Pierce agreed to pay Indseth a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of land. Indseth had already paid Pierce a portion of the money, but Pierce refused to accept the remaining payment. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not involve any illegal activity. The Court also held that Pierce was not entitled to a refund of the money he had already paid to Indseth. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Pierce had received the benefit of the bargain. Therefore, he was not entitled to a refund. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Pierce and Indseth was valid and enforceable, and that Pierce was not entitled to a refund of the money he had already paid to Indseth.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Pierce v. Indseth, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding upon them both, regardless of any subsequent changes to state law or regulations. In this case, he noted that when the contract was made there were no laws prohibiting it; therefore, it should still stand as valid even though such laws had been enacted later on. Furthermore, Justice Field stated that if contracts could be invalidated by subsequent legislation then all existing contracts would become uncertain and unreliable which would lead to chaos in business transactions across the country. He concluded his dissent by stating that while he agreed with some aspects of the majority opinion regarding public policy considerations related to gambling debts being unenforceable under certain circumstances; however those considerations did not apply here since this particular debt was contracted before any relevant statutes were passed into law making such debts illegal and thus enforceable according to its terms at time of formation