In Smeltzer v. White, 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 a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the husband was liable for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Smelzer v. White, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key issue of fact in their decision. He argued that there was evidence presented at trial which showed that the plaintiff had been given an oral promise by one of the defendants to pay him for his services and labor, and this should have been taken into account when deciding whether or not he was entitled to compensation. Justice Field also noted that if such a promise were found to be true, then it would constitute consideration sufficient for a valid contract under Pennsylvania law. As such, he concluded that since there was evidence presented at trial indicating such an agreement existed between parties, it should have been considered by the court before rendering its judgment on whether or not payment could be recovered from them.