In the case of Brobst v. Brock, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The plaintiff, Brobst, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Brock, to purchase a tract of land. The contract stated that the purchase price was to be paid in installments, with the final payment due in two years. However, before the final payment was due, Brobst died. His executor, who was also the plaintiff in the case, argued that the contract was still valid and that the final payment should be made to the estate. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and that the final payment should be made to the estate. The Court reasoned that the contract was binding on both parties and that the death of one of the parties did not invalidate the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was not a personal one, and that the executor was entitled to the same rights as the original party to the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Brobst and Brock was valid and that the final payment should be made to the estate of Brobst. The Court's decision established that contracts are binding on both parties, regardless of the death of one of the parties.

In Brobst v. Brock, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of conveyance from one party to another could be revoked by the grantor after it had been accepted and acted upon by the grantee. The majority opinion held that such an act would constitute fraud and thus be invalidated; however, Justice Field dissented on this point. He argued that while fraud should not be tolerated in any form, there were cases where revocation of a deed was necessary for justice to prevail - namely when circumstances had changed since its execution or if it contained terms which violated public policy or morals. Furthermore, he noted that even though some states may have laws prohibiting such revocations, they did not necessarily apply in all cases as each situation must be judged individually based on its own merits. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that revoking deeds should remain an option available to parties involved so long as no fraudulent intent can be proven and due consideration is given to both sides' interests before making a final decision.