In Russell v. Stansell, 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 an agreement between the plaintiff, Russell, and the defendant, Stansell, in which Stansell agreed to pay Russell a certain sum of money in exchange for Russell's services. The Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court found 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 held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties were of sound mind and had the capacity to enter into a contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court found that there was no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. In conclusion, the Court held that the contract between Russell and Stansell was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Russell v. Stansell, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to unjust results. He argued that under existing law, a tenant who had been wrongfully dispossessed of their property could recover damages from the person responsible for such dispossession. In this case, he asserted that Stansell had wrongfully taken possession of Russell's land and should be held liable for damages accordingly. Furthermore, he noted that even if it were assumed that Stansell acted without knowledge or notice of any prior claim by Russell on the land in question, then at least nominal damages should still have been awarded as a matter of equity and justice since there was no dispute over his wrongful taking of possession. Justice Field concluded by expressing his regret at not being able to join with the majority in reversing what he believed was an equitable judgment rendered against Stansell which ought not be disturbed on appeal.