In Stewart v. Sonneborn, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between a father and son, whereby the father agreed to pay the son a certain sum of money in exchange for the son's promise to pay the father's debts. The son had already paid some of the debts, but the father had not yet paid the son the agreed-upon sum. The son then sued the father for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, as the son had already paid some of the debts and was thus entitled to receive the agreed-upon sum from the father. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not involve any illegal or immoral activity. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the son was entitled to receive the agreed-upon sum from the father. This decision established that contracts between family members are valid and enforceable, provided that they are supported by consideration and do not involve any illegal or immoral activity.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stewart v. Sonneborn, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a great deal of confusion for future courts. He argued that under existing law, when an executor or administrator is appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction, they are vested with all the rights and powers necessary to carry out their duties as set forth in state statutes. The Court had previously held that such appointments were valid even if made after death; however, Justice Field contended this ruling contradicted those prior decisions because it denied recognition of any appointment made after death unless specifically authorized by statute. Furthermore, he noted that while some states may have specific laws regarding post-death appointments, many do not; thus denying these individuals their right to be recognized as legal representatives could create unnecessary hardship for them and their families. In conclusion, Justice Field stated his belief that allowing post-death appointments should remain within the discretion of each individual state legislature rather than being determined by federal courts on a case-by-case basis.