Stacey v. Emery was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Stacey, and the defendant, Emery, in which Emery agreed to pay Stacey a certain sum of money in exchange for Stacey's services. Stacey argued that the contract was valid and that Emery had breached it by failing to pay the agreed-upon sum. Emery argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract had been signed by both parties and that the consideration had been paid. The Court also noted that the contract had been made in good faith and that there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable and that Emery was liable for the agreed-upon sum.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stacey v. Emery, arguing that a state court's decision should not be overturned unless it is clearly wrong or violates some provision of the Constitution. He argued that this case did neither and thus should stand as decided by the state court. The majority had held that an agreement between two parties to arbitrate their dispute was invalid because it lacked consideration, but Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion since he believed there was sufficient evidence of consideration present in the record for arbitration to be validly agreed upon by both parties. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were no consideration present at all, courts have long recognized agreements to arbitrate disputes without any additional considerations being necessary due to public policy favoring such arrangements as they are often more expeditious than litigation and can help resolve conflicts quickly and efficiently without resorting to costly legal proceedings. Therefore, Justice Field concluded his dissent by urging reversal of the majority's judgment so as not disturb established precedent on these matters which has been accepted for many years prior.