In Arthur v. Jacoby, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between Arthur and Jacoby, in which Arthur agreed to pay Jacoby a certain sum of money in exchange for Jacoby's services. Jacoby had performed the services as agreed, but Arthur refused to pay the agreed-upon sum. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that Jacoby had performed the services as agreed, and that Arthur had not raised any objections to the contract at the time it was entered into. The Court concluded that Arthur was obligated to pay the agreed-upon sum to Jacoby, and that Jacoby was entitled to recover the amount due from Arthur. The Court also noted that Arthur's refusal to pay the agreed-upon sum was a breach of contract, and that Jacoby was entitled to damages for the breach.

In the case of Arthur v. Jacoby, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had been misled by false representations made by the other. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked mutuality and consideration, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that while it is true that there must be mutuality and consideration for a contract to be valid, in cases where one party has been deceived into entering into an agreement due to fraudulent misrepresentations made by another party, equity should prevail over technicalities of law. In his view, if both parties are willing to abide by their contractual obligations then justice demands that those agreements should still stand despite any lack of formal legal requirements or considerations.