In the case of Topliff v. Topliff, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a husband and wife could enter into a contract to settle their property rights upon divorce. The case involved a husband and wife, both of whom were citizens of the state of New York. The husband had filed for divorce, and the parties had entered into a contract to settle their property rights. The contract provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money in exchange for her relinquishing her rights to the property. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was entered into voluntarily by both parties, and that it was not contrary to public policy. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the husband was obligated to pay the wife the sum of money specified in the contract.

In the case of Topliff v. Topliff, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted relief to either party because neither had established their right to it. He noted that both parties were claiming title to land based on an alleged deed from 1845, but there was no evidence presented as to who actually held legal title at the time or what rights each party had under it. Furthermore, Justice Field stated that even if one of them did hold legal title and could prove it with sufficient evidence, they still would not be entitled to any relief since they failed to show how long ago they acquired possession of the property and whether or not anyone else has ever claimed ownership over it during this period. Ultimately, he concluded by saying that without more information about these matters being provided by either side in court proceedings then neither can be awarded any sort of judgment in their favor.