In Stewart v. Lansing, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiff, Stewart, and the defendant, Lansing. Stewart had agreed to sell Lansing a parcel of land for a certain sum of money. However, Lansing failed to pay the agreed-upon amount and Stewart sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties were of sound mind and had the capacity to enter into a contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court noted that there was no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Stewart and Lansing was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, supported by consideration, and not voidable due to any lack of capacity or fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stewart v. Lansing, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that under Michigan law, a married woman had no right to own property separate from her husband; thus, she could not enter into contracts or conveyances of real estate without his consent. The court held that this rule did not apply to Mrs. Lansing because she had been living apart from her husband for several years prior to entering into the contract at issue in this case; however, Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and asserted that it was irrelevant whether they were living together or apart when considering their marital status under Michigan law. Furthermore, he argued that even if Mrs. Lansing had been legally separated from her husband at the time of entering into the contract, such separation would have only given her limited rights over certain types of personal property but would still not allow her to make any conveyance of real estate without his consent as required by state law. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since there was no evidence presented showing Mr. Lansing's consent for Mrs. Lansing's purchase of land in question here nor any other legal authority allowing such transaction absent his approval - then it must be determined invalid according to Michigan statutes governing marriage and ownership rights between spouses therein