This case was a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiffs, Caillot and another, were the sellers of the land, and the defendant, Deetken, was the buyer. The contract stated that the buyer was to pay the sellers a certain amount of money for the land, and that the sellers would then convey the land to the buyer. The dispute arose when the buyer failed to pay the sellers the agreed-upon amount of money. The sellers then sued the buyer for breach of contract. The buyer argued that the contract was void because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the buyer was liable for breach of contract. The Court also held that the sellers were entitled to damages for the breach. The Court's decision established that contracts must be properly executed in order to be valid and enforceable. It also established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This case serves as an important precedent for contract law in the United States.

In Caillot & Another v. Deetken, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment in favor of two plaintiffs against one defendant could be enforced by execution on property owned by the defendant and held jointly with another person who had not been joined as a party to the suit. The majority opinion found that it could not, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that under Louisiana law, which governed this case, when two or more persons are liable for an obligation they can all be sued together and if any of them is absent from the state then service may be made upon those present without joining those absent as parties. Furthermore he noted that even though there were multiple defendants in this case only one was served with process so it would have been impossible for both defendants to appear at trial regardless of their joint ownership status over certain properties. Therefore he concluded that since no fraud or collusion existed between these parties and since due process had been followed throughout proceedings then justice should prevail and execution should issue against all jointly-owned properties belonging to either defendant in order to satisfy plaintiff's judgment.