In the case of Scarborough v. Pargoud, 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 Scarborough, a cotton planter, and Pargoud, a cotton broker. The contract stated that Pargoud would purchase cotton from Scarborough and pay him a certain amount of money for it. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in good faith and that both parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was not against public policy and that it was not unconscionable. The Court also held that Pargoud was liable for the amount of money he had agreed to pay Scarborough for the cotton. The Court reasoned that Pargoud had accepted the terms of the contract and had not made any objections to them. Therefore, the Court concluded that Pargoud was bound by the terms of the contract and was liable for the amount of money he had agreed to pay Scarborough. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Scarborough and Pargoud was valid and enforceable. Furthermore, the Court held that Pargoud was liable for the amount of money he had agreed to pay Scarborough for the cotton.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Scarborough v. Pargoud, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of Louisiana law and an incorrect interpretation of the facts. He argued that under Louisiana law, when two persons are jointly liable for a debt, each is individually responsible for its payment; thus, if one person pays it off without any agreement from the other debtor to reimburse them or otherwise accept responsibility for part of it, then they have no right to recover anything from their co-debtor. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that there was no evidence presented at trial showing any kind of agreement between Pargoud and Scarborough regarding reimbursement or contribution towards repayment - rather than being an express contract as suggested by the majority opinion - but instead only circumstantial evidence which could not be used to establish such an arrangement. As such he concluded that since there had been no proof offered up establishing this alleged contract between Pargoud and Scarborough with regards to repayment obligations related to their joint debt liability then neither party should be able to recover anything from one another in relation thereto.