In the case of Wiswall et al. v. Campbell et al., Assignees, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiffs, Wiswall et al., and the defendants, Campbell et al., and involved the sale of a parcel of land. The plaintiffs argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while the defendants argued that it was not. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also noted that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the defendants had received something of value in exchange for their promise. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as the parties had agreed to certain terms and conditions that were binding on both parties. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not void for lack of capacity, as the parties had both been competent to enter into the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Wiswall et al. and Campbell et al. was valid and enforceable.

In the case of Wiswall et al. v. Campbell et al., Assignees, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of the law and facts. He noted that under New York law, when a debtor assigns his property to another person for purposes of security or collection, it is not necessary for him to execute any instrument conveying title; rather, all that is required is delivery with intent to transfer ownership. In this case, there had been such delivery and intent by Wiswall as evidenced by his actions in giving up possession and control over certain properties assigned as security for debt repayment obligations owed by him to Campbell & Co.. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that Wiswall had effectively transferred title over these properties even though no formal deed or other document evidencing such conveyance had ever been executed between them. As such, he believed the lower court's ruling should have been affirmed instead of reversed since it correctly applied existing legal principles governing assignments under New York State law at the time.