In Daniel v. Whartenby, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between Daniel, a resident of the state of Virginia, and Whartenby, a resident of the state of Maryland. The contract was for the sale of a tract of land located in Maryland. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was made in good faith and that both parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy and that it was not in violation of any law. The Court further held that the contract was binding on both parties and that Daniel was entitled to the performance of the contract by Whartenby. The Court also held that Daniel was entitled to damages for any breach of the contract by Whartenby. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Daniel and Whartenby was valid and enforceable and that Daniel was entitled to the performance of the contract by Whartenby and damages for any breach of the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Daniel v. Whartenby, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and failed to recognize a fundamental principle of law. He argued that under existing laws, an executor or administrator is not liable for debts incurred by their predecessor unless they have expressly assumed responsibility for them. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that Whartenby had ever agreed to assume liability for his predecessor's debt; therefore he should not be held responsible for it. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were some agreement between the parties regarding payment of the debt at issue here, such an agreement would still be unenforceable due to its lack of consideration and mutuality of obligation - two essential elements required in order for a contract to be valid and enforceable under law. Therefore, he concluded that judgment should have been entered in favor of Whartenby as requested by his counsel during oral argument before the court.