In Arthur v. Herold, 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 Arthur and Herold, and it stated that Herold would pay Arthur a certain sum of money in exchange for the transfer of certain real estate. 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 its terms. Furthermore, the Court found that the consideration for the contract was sufficient, and that the parties had acted in good faith. The Court also held that the contract was binding on both parties, and that Arthur was entitled to the money he was promised. The Court noted that Herold had failed to make the payments as agreed, and that Arthur was entitled to damages for breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Arthur and Herold was valid and enforceable, and that Arthur was entitled to damages for breach of contract.

In Arthur v. Herold, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of them had died before it was completed. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it had not been fully performed by both parties and thus did not meet all of the requirements for an enforceable agreement under state law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts should generally be upheld unless there is evidence to suggest fraud or other misconduct on either side. He argued that in this case, there were no such allegations and so the contract should have been honored as written despite one party's death prior to its completion. Ultimately, however, his dissent went unheeded and the majority opinion prevailed.