In Wallace v. Loomis, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Wallace and Loomis, and it stated that Loomis would pay Wallace a certain amount of money in exchange for Wallace's land. Wallace argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing, as required by the Statute of Frauds. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, despite the fact that it was not in writing. The Court reasoned that the Statute of Frauds was intended to protect parties from fraud, and that in this case, there was no evidence of fraud. Furthermore, the Court noted that the parties had acted in reliance on the contract, and that it would be unjust to allow Loomis to avoid his obligations under the contract. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Wallace and Loomis was valid and enforceable. This decision established that the Statute of Frauds does not always require a contract to be in writing in order to be valid.

In Wallace v. Loomis, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a party could be held liable for damages caused by an act of negligence that occurred before they had taken ownership of the property in question. The majority opinion found that no liability existed because there was no privity between the parties and thus, no duty owed from one to another. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that when someone takes possession of land with knowledge of a dangerous condition on it, they assume responsibility for any harm resulting from such conditions regardless if there is privity or not. He further argued that allowing people to take possession without being responsible would encourage them to ignore potential dangers which could lead to serious injury or death; therefore he concluded that those taking possession should be held accountable for their actions even if there is no direct relationship between them and those who were injured as a result.