In Arthur's Executors v. Vietor, 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 Vietor, and it stated that Vietor would pay Arthur a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain piece of property. The Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Vietor was obligated to pay the sum of money as agreed. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not illegal or otherwise unenforceable. In conclusion, the Court held that the contract between Arthur and Vietor was valid and enforceable, and that Vietor was obligated to pay the sum of money as agreed. The Court's decision was unanimous.

In Arthur's Executors v. Vietor, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced after one of them had died. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because it violated public policy and would have been illegal if it had been performed during the lifetime of both parties. However, in dissent Justice Field argued that contracts should be enforced regardless of their legality or illegality as long as they do not violate any constitutional provisions or statutes passed by Congress. He further argued that there is no reason why an executor should not be able to enforce a valid contract entered into by his testator before death since such enforcement does nothing more than carry out what the deceased intended when he made the agreement with another party.