In Speidel v. Henrici, 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 an agreement between a husband and wife, wherein the husband agreed to 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 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 the parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was not against the law, and that the husband had the ability to pay the wife the money he had promised. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the wife was entitled to the money she was promised. The Court also noted that the husband was liable for any damages that the wife had suffered as a result of his breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Speidel v. Henrici, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a provision of California law and failed to consider its implications for other legal issues. He argued that under California law, an executor was not liable for debts incurred by their predecessor unless they were specifically mentioned in the will or codicil. The majority's interpretation of this rule would have made all executors responsible for any debt left unpaid by their predecessors, regardless of whether it was specified in the will or codicil. This could lead to unfair results if an estate did not have enough assets to pay off all outstanding debts from prior administrations; Justice Field believed this should be avoided at all costs. Furthermore, he noted that while there may be some cases where such liability is appropriate, those instances should only arise when explicitly stated within a will or codicil rather than through judicial interpretation alone.