In Arthur's Executors v. Butterfield, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Arthur and Butterfield, and it stated that Butterfield would pay Arthur a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain piece of property. Arthur died before the contract was fulfilled, and his executors sued Butterfield for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was binding on both parties, and that Arthur's death did not invalidate the contract. The Court also held that the executors had the right to sue Butterfield for breach of contract, as they were the legal representatives of Arthur's estate. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Arthur and Butterfield was valid and enforceable, and that Arthur's executors had the right to sue Butterfield for breach of contract.

In Arthur's Executors v. Butterfield, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of the parties had died before it was executed. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration given by either party at the time of execution, and because contracts with deceased persons are generally void, this particular contract should not be enforced. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that although contracts with deceased persons are usually unenforceable due to lack of consideration or mutuality of obligation, in some cases they can still be valid if they were made for good cause prior to death and accepted after death by those who would benefit from them; he believed this case fell into such an exception as both parties had agreed upon all terms prior to death and only needed formal execution afterwards. Additionally, he noted that even though courts have traditionally been reluctant to enforce posthumous agreements due to their potential for fraud or abuse (which is why most states require special statutory authorization), here there were sufficient safeguards against any such abuses present in order for enforcement of the agreement not only possible but also desirable under equity principles.