In the case of Richards v. Mackall, 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 a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the husband was liable for breach of contract.

In the case of Richards v. Mackall, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He believed that the plaintiff had established sufficient facts to prove his claim for an equitable lien on certain property owned by defendant Mackall, and thus deserved relief from the court. According to Justice Field, it was clear from both parties' testimony that there existed a contract between them whereby Richards provided services as an attorney-at-law in exchange for payment; however, when Mackall failed to pay him what he was owed despite repeated requests over several years’ time, Richards sought legal recourse through filing suit against him. In addition to this evidence showing their contractual relationship and subsequent breach thereof by defendant Mackall, Justice Field also noted other factors such as possession of title deeds being held by Richards at all times since 1867 until after commencement of suit in 1872 further supported his argument for granting relief to plaintiff under these circumstances.