Arthur v. Dodge 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 Arthur and Dodge, in which Arthur agreed to pay Dodge a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Arthur failed to make the payments as agreed, and Dodge sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that Arthur had failed to make the payments as agreed, and that Dodge was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court also noted that Arthur had not raised any defenses to the contract, and that the contract was binding on both parties. The Court held that Dodge was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and that Arthur was liable for the amount due. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Arthur and Dodge was valid and enforceable, and that Dodge was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court also noted that Arthur had not raised any defenses to the contract, and that the contract was binding on both parties.

In the case of Arthur v. Dodge, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal law. He believed that the court should have instead focused on whether or not Congress had granted authority to create such a contract under its power to regulate interstate commerce. In his view, this would have been more consistent with prior Supreme Court decisions and better served justice for all parties involved. Furthermore, he noted that while it may be true that states can pass laws regulating contracts within their own borders, they cannot do so when those contracts involve interstate commerce as this is solely within the purview of Congress' powers under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause). As such, Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that since no Congressional act authorized such a contract between these two parties then it could not be enforced in any court regardless of what state laws said about it.