In Crump v. Thurbe, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Crump, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Thurbe, to purchase a tract of land. The contract stated that the purchase price was to be paid in installments, with the first installment due on a certain date. Thurbe failed to make the payment on the due date, and Crump sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. 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, as Crump had paid a portion of the purchase price in advance. The Court held that Thurbe was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price. The Court's decision in Crump v. Thurbe established that contracts are binding and enforceable when they are clear and unambiguous, and when they are supported by consideration. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Crump v. Thurbe, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the law and facts of this case. He argued that under Missouri state law, which governed this dispute, an executor had no authority to sell real estate belonging to an estate without first obtaining court approval or authorization from all interested parties. The majority held that such consent was not necessary because it found there were no other heirs with interests in the property at issue; however Justice Field disagreed and argued that even if there were no other heirs with interests in the property, they should still have been consulted before any sale took place as required by Missouri state law. Furthermore he noted that since none of these parties had given their consent for a sale prior to its execution by Crump (the executor), then it must be deemed invalid according to applicable legal principles. As such he concluded his dissent by urging reversal of the lower court’s judgment against Thurbe so as to protect her rights under Missouri state law.