In Arthur v. Unkart, 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, a resident of Ohio, and Unkart, a resident of Kentucky. Arthur had agreed to sell Unkart a tract of land in Ohio for a certain sum of money. Unkart had agreed to pay the sum of money in installments, with the first installment due on a certain date. Unkart failed to make the first installment payment on the due date, and Arthur sued to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was made in good faith and that both parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to public policy and that it did not violate any laws. The Court concluded that the contract was binding on both parties and that Arthur was entitled to recover the amount due under the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Arthur v. Unkart, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key point of law. He argued that under Missouri state law, when an executor is appointed by a court and takes possession of property with intent to administer it for the benefit of creditors, he has no power to sell or convey any part of it without first obtaining permission from the court. In this case, Unkart was appointed as executor and took possession with such intent; however he sold some parts before getting permission from the court. Justice Field argued that since there was no evidence presented showing otherwise, Unkart's sale should be considered voidable at best - not absolutely void - meaning Arthur could still have valid title if certain conditions were met (such as paying off all debts). Therefore Justice Field concluded that Arthur should prevail on his claim against Unkart because he did not violate any laws in acquiring title through purchase from him.