The Supreme Court case of Arrowsmith v. Gleason was a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a parcel of land. The plaintiff, Arrowsmith, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Gleason, to purchase a parcel of land for $2,000. The contract stated that Arrowsmith was to pay $1,000 in cash and the remaining $1,000 in two installments of $500 each. Arrowsmith paid the $1,000 in cash but failed to pay the remaining $1,000. Gleason then sued Arrowsmith for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Arrowsmith was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Arrowsmith had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and was therefore liable for damages. The Court also held that Gleason was entitled to recover the full amount of the contract, including the $1,000 that Arrowsmith had failed to pay. The Court's decision in Arrowsmith v. Gleason established that a party who fails to fulfill their contractual obligations is liable for damages. This case serves as an important reminder that parties must fulfill their contractual obligations in order to avoid liability for breach of contract.

In the Supreme Court case of Arrowsmith v. Gleason, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of state law. He noted that under New York law, a contract between two parties could not be enforced if it had been procured by fraud or misrepresentation and thus should have been voided due to Gleason's fraudulent behavior. Furthermore, Harlan argued that even if there were no such legal precedent in place at the time of this case, then common sense dictates that any contract obtained through deceitful means should not be enforceable. In conclusion, Justice Harlan believed that Arrowsmith should have prevailed as his rights had clearly been violated and justice would only truly be served by reversing the lower court’s ruling against him.