In the case of Pleasants v. Fant, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Pleasants, a Virginia resident, and Fant, a North Carolina resident. Pleasants had agreed to purchase a tract of land from Fant, and Fant had agreed to convey the land to Pleasants. The contract was made in North Carolina, and the deed was to be delivered in Virginia. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was made in North Carolina, and that the deed was to be delivered in Virginia. The Court also noted that the contract was not prohibited by any law of either state, and that the parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Pleasants was entitled to the land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Pleasants v. Fant, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key point of law. He argued that when an individual enters into a contract with another party, they are bound by its terms and cannot later seek to modify them without mutual agreement from both parties involved. In this case, he noted that Mr. Pleasants had entered into an agreement with Mr. Fant for the sale of certain property; however, after signing it he sought to alter some of its provisions without obtaining consent from his counterpart or any other authority granted by law. Justice Field concluded that since no such permission was given nor could be inferred under existing laws at the time, then Mr. Pleasants' attempt to modify their contract was invalid and should not have been recognized as valid by either court below or now before this Court on appeal