Trenier v. Stewart was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Trenier and Stewart, in which Trenier agreed to pay Stewart a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Stewart argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing, while Trenier argued that the contract was valid because it had been partially performed. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Trenier, ruling that the contract was valid. The Court held that the contract was binding because it had been partially performed, and that the lack of a written agreement did not invalidate the contract. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in good faith and that the contract was not against public policy. As a result, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Trenier v. Stewart, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under Louisiana law, a contract of sale could only be enforced if it had been signed by both parties or their agents; since neither party nor their agent had signed this particular contract, he believed there was no enforceable agreement between them. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if an oral agreement existed between the two parties regarding the sale of property, such agreements were not legally binding unless they were reduced to writing and signed by both parties or their agents as required by Louisiana law. Thus, he concluded that there was no valid contract between Trenier and Stewart and therefore Trenier did not have any legal right to recover damages from Stewart for breach of said contract.