In Scholey v. Rew, 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 Scholey, a landowner, and Rew, a tenant. Scholey had leased a portion of his land to Rew for a period of three years, with the understanding that Rew would pay a certain amount of rent each year. Rew had failed to pay the rent for the third year, and Scholey sought to evict him from the property. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Scholey and Rew was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that Rew had agreed to pay the rent for the third year. The Court also noted that Rew had not raised any defenses to the contract, such as fraud or duress, and that he had not attempted to set aside the contract. As such, the Court held that Scholey was entitled to evict Rew from the property.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Scholey v. Rew, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that a contract should be interpreted according to its plain language, not by what one party may have intended or expected when they entered into it. In this case, he noted that there was no ambiguity in the terms of the contract; therefore, it should be enforced as written rather than reinterpreted based on subjective intent. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if parties are allowed to change their contracts after they have been executed then all contracts would become uncertain and unenforceable due to lack of clarity regarding each party's intentions at any given time during performance of said agreement. As such, he concluded that courts must enforce contracts as written unless there is clear evidence of fraud or mistake which could invalidate them altogether.