Pollard v. Bailey 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 Pollard and Bailey, in which Pollard agreed to pay Bailey a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Bailey had previously leased the land to another party, and Pollard argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, despite the fact that it was not in writing. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by the fact that Pollard had taken possession of the land and had made improvements to it. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Pollard and Bailey was valid, despite the fact that it was not in writing. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration and that Pollard had taken possession of the land and had made improvements to it.

In Pollard v. Bailey, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties that involved land owned by one of them could be enforced if it had been made without the consent or knowledge of their respective spouses. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated state law which required both husband and wife to join in any conveyance of real estate. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that there was no evidence to suggest that either party intended for their spouse's consent to be necessary for the contract's validity; thus, he argued, enforcing it would not violate public policy as established by state law. He further noted that while some states did require spousal consent in certain cases involving real estate transactions, Alabama (where this case originated) had never adopted such a requirement and therefore should not be bound by laws from other jurisdictions on this matter.