In Schmieder v. Barney, 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 Schmieder and Barney, and it stated that Schmieder would pay Barney a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain piece of land. The Supreme 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 consideration for the contract was sufficient, and that the contract was not against public policy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Schmieder and Barney 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 consideration for the contract was sufficient, and that the contract was not against public policy.

In Schmieder v. Barney, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and was therefore voidable at the option of either party. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts are generally enforceable unless they violate some positive law or involve matters which affect public policy so seriously as to render them unenforceable by courts of justice. He argued that since there were no such laws or policies in this case, the court should have allowed enforcement of the contract according to its terms and conditions.