Trustees v. Greenough was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between the trustees of a Massachusetts charitable trust and the heirs of the trust's creator, who sought to have the trust dissolved. The trustees argued that the trust was irrevocable and could not be dissolved. The Supreme Court held that the trust was irrevocable and could not be dissolved. The Court reasoned that the trust was created for a charitable purpose, and that the trust's creator had intended for the trust to be irrevocable. The Court also noted that the trust had been in existence for many years, and that the trust's creator had not taken any action to revoke the trust. The Court concluded that the trust was irrevocable and could not be dissolved. The Court also held that the trust's beneficiaries had no right to demand the dissolution of the trust. The Court's decision was a victory for the trustees, who were able to continue administering the trust for its intended charitable purpose.

In Trustees v. Greenough, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Massachusetts statute that allowed for the sale of land held in trust by an individual trustee could be enforced against creditors who had obtained judgments against him prior to his death. The majority opinion found that it could not, as such a sale would violate the rights of those creditors and thus be unconstitutional under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S Constitution which prohibits states from passing any law impairing contracts between individuals or entities. Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no evidence presented at trial showing how enforcing this particular statute would actually harm these creditors; secondly, he asserted that even if it did cause some sort of injury to them they were still bound by their contract with the deceased trustee and therefore should have been aware of any potential risks when entering into said agreement in the first place. In conclusion then Justice Field concluded that since there was no clear violation here nor any real harm done to anyone involved then upholding this state law should stand as constitutional and valid under Article I Section 10's prohibition on laws impairing contracts between individuals or entities