In Schott v. Hudson, 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 Schott, a real estate developer, and Hudson, a contractor. Schott had hired Hudson to build a house on a lot of land that Schott owned. The contract stated that Hudson would be paid a certain amount of money for the work, and that Schott would pay the money in installments. 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. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the performance of the contract. The Court also held that Schott was obligated to pay the money that was due to Hudson under the contract. The Court noted that Schott had not made any of the payments that were due under the contract, and that Hudson had performed all of the work that was required under the contract. The Court held that Schott was liable for the money that was due to Hudson, and that Hudson was entitled to recover the money from Schott.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Schott v. Hudson, arguing that the Court should not have granted a writ of error to review the decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. He argued that this case was one which did not involve any federal questions and thus it was inappropriate for a writ of error to be issued by the US Supreme Court. Furthermore, he noted that there were no errors made by either party during trial or on appeal before reaching its final judgment and therefore there is nothing for this court to review. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that if such cases are allowed to come up on writs of error then it would open up an avenue where state courts could be overruled without proper cause or justification from this court's perspective.