In Carrol et al. v. Green et al., 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 the plaintiffs, Carrol et al., and the defendants, Green et al. The contract was for the sale of a tract of land in the state of Mississippi. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was made in good faith and that the parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. The Court also found that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation. The Court also held that the contract was binding on the parties and that the defendants were obligated to convey the land to the plaintiffs. The Court further held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for any breach of the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Carrol et al. and Green et al. was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was made in good faith and that the parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. The Court also held that the contract was binding on the parties and that the defendants were obligated to convey the land to the plaintiffs. The Court further held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for any breach of the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Carrol et al. v. Green et al., arguing that the majority's decision was wrong and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding, regardless of whether it has been approved by Congress or not, and therefore the original agreement between Carrol and Green should have been enforced as written. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress had intended to invalidate such contracts they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to interpretation by courts. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since there was no evidence of fraud or mistake on either side when entering into their agreement, both parties were entitled to rely upon its terms being upheld in court without interference from Congress' subsequent legislation which did not expressly address this issue one way or another.