Sherman v. Jerome was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Sherman, and the defendant, Jerome, in which Jerome agreed to pay Sherman a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of land. Sherman argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while Jerome argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was supported by consideration, which is an essential element of a valid contract. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in reliance on the contract, which further supported its validity. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not required to be in writing in order to be valid, as long as the parties had agreed to its terms. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Sherman and Jerome was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration and that the parties had acted in reliance on it, and that it was not necessary for the contract to be in writing in order to be valid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Sherman v. Jerome, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a great deal of confusion for courts attempting to interpret similar cases in the future. He argued that under prior decisions, an individual who had been wrongfully dispossessed of property could bring suit against any person who had aided or abetted such dispossession regardless of whether they were aware it was wrongful at the time. The majority opinion instead held that only those persons with actual knowledge of wrongdoing could be liable for aiding and abetting a wrongful act. Justice Field believed this new rule created unnecessary complexity by requiring plaintiffs to prove defendants' state of mind before being able to recover damages from them; he also noted that it contradicted existing law which did not require proof as such when determining liability for aiding and abetting a tortious act. In conclusion, Justice Field argued strongly against overturning long-standing legal principles without sufficient cause or justification, believing it would create more problems than solutions going forward.