In Roundtree v. Smith & Another, 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 Roundtree and Smith, and it stated that Roundtree would pay Smith a certain amount of money in exchange for Smith's promise to pay Roundtree a certain amount of money at a later date. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Roundtree had provided Smith with a valuable consideration in exchange for Smith's promise to pay. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as both parties had agreed to perform certain obligations under the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of capacity, as both parties had the legal capacity to enter into the contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not void for lack of writing, as the contract was sufficiently evidenced by the parties' written agreement. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Roundtree and Smith was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Roundtree v. Smith & Another, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key point of law when deciding on the case. He argued that under Louisiana state law, which was applicable in this case, an executor could not be held liable for debts incurred by their predecessor unless they had accepted responsibility for them. The majority opinion did not address this issue and instead focused solely on whether or not there was sufficient evidence to prove that Roundtree had assumed liability for his predecessor's debt. Justice Field believed it should have been taken into consideration as part of their decision-making process and thus dissented from the ruling handed down by the court.