In Stephen v. Beall et ux, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a deed of trust was valid. The deed of trust was created by a man named Stephen, who had borrowed money from Beall and his wife. Stephen had agreed to pay the loan back with interest, and had given the Bealls a deed of trust as security for the loan. The deed of trust provided that if Stephen failed to pay the loan, the Bealls could take possession of the property. The Supreme Court held that the deed of trust was valid. The Court noted that the deed of trust was a valid security for the loan, and that Stephen had agreed to the terms of the deed of trust. The Court also noted that the deed of trust was properly executed and witnessed, and that Stephen had not raised any objections to the deed of trust. Therefore, the Court held that the deed of trust was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stephen v. Beall et ux, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether one party has acted fraudulently or not. In this case, he noted that there had been no evidence presented to show any fraudulent behavior by either party; therefore, it was wrong for the court to rule against Stephen based solely on his own testimony regarding what he believed happened during negotiations with Beall et ux. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there had been some form of misrepresentation made by one side or another during negotiations - which again could not be proven - then it would still have been up to a jury to decide whether such an act constituted fraud and how much damages were owed as a result. As such, Justice Field concluded that since neither party could prove their respective claims beyond reasonable doubt in this case and since no other evidence existed upon which the court could make its ruling; thusly they should have ruled in favor of Stephen instead of denying him relief from his contractual obligations with Beall et ux