In the case of Buxton v. Traver, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Buxton and Traver, over a contract for the sale of a parcel of land. The contract between the two parties stated that Traver would pay Buxton $1,000 for the land, and that the payment would be made in installments. However, Traver failed to make the payments as agreed, and Buxton sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Traver was liable for breach of contract. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the performance of the contract. The Court also held that Traver was liable for damages, as he had failed to perform his obligations under the contract. The Court noted that the damages should be equal to the amount of money that Buxton would have received had Traver performed his obligations under the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Buxton and Traver was valid and enforceable, and that Traver was liable for breach of contract and damages.

In the case of Buxton v. Traver, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and should be overturned. He noted that in previous cases, such as The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812), it had been established that when a contract is made between two parties on land subject to foreign jurisdiction, then any dispute arising from said contract must be settled according to the laws of the country where it was formed; thus, if an American citizen entered into a contract while abroad and sued for breach of said contract in America courts, they would have no standing since their claim would not fall under US law but rather under foreign law. In this particular case involving Mr. Buxton suing Mr. Traver for breach of agreement regarding certain mining claims located in Mexico City - Justice Field argued that since both men were citizens of California at the time they entered into their agreement and since Mexican law applied to all contracts made within its borders - then any disputes arising from said agreement must also be governed by Mexican Law instead of Californian or US Law; therefore he concluded that Mr Buxton did not have legal standing to sue his counterpart before American courts due to lack jurisdiction over matters pertaining exclusively to Mexico City