Cissel v. Dutch was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between a man named Cissel and a man named Dutch. Cissel had agreed to pay Dutch a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Dutch had agreed to pay Cissel a certain amount of money for the use of the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid. 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 found that the contract was not against public policy, meaning that it did not violate any laws or regulations. The Court also held that the contract was binding on both parties. This meant that both parties were obligated to fulfill their promises under the contract. The Court also held that the contract could not be revoked by either party without the consent of the other. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Cissel and Dutch was valid and binding on both parties. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration and was not against public policy. The Court also held that the contract could not be revoked by either party without the consent of the other.

In Cissel v. Dutch, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment of foreclosure and sale of mortgaged property in Maryland could be enforced against an heir who had not been made a party to the original suit. The majority opinion held that such enforcement was permissible under Maryland law; however, Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that it would be unjust for an individual to suffer loss due to being excluded from proceedings which affected their interests without any opportunity for them to defend themselves or present evidence on their behalf. Furthermore, he noted that there were no provisions in either state or federal law allowing judgments entered against non-parties and thus concluded that enforcing the foreclosure judgment against Mr. Cissel would violate his constitutional right of due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.