This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Georgia. The plaintiff, Edwards, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Elliott, and that he had paid the full purchase price. Elliott, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received the full purchase price. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edwards, finding that the sale was valid and that he had paid the full purchase price. The Court held that the sale was binding and that Elliott was not entitled to any additional payment. The Court also held that the deed of sale was valid and that Edwards was the rightful owner of the land. The Court's decision was based on the principle that a contract is binding and that a party cannot unilaterally change the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the deed of sale was properly executed and that Edwards had paid the full purchase price. The Court concluded that Elliott was not entitled to any additional payment and that Edwards was the rightful owner of the land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Edwards v. Elliott et al., arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a party who was not before it, nor did it have jurisdiction over any of the parties involved in this case. Furthermore, he contended that even if such an injunction were validly issued by a state court, it could not be enforced outside of its own jurisdiction; thus, enforcing such an injunction would violate Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution which states "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts...of every other State." Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while he agreed with much of what was said by Chief Justice Chase regarding equity powers being limited when they conflict with statutory or constitutional provisions, he believed this particular case fell into one of those exceptions where equity should prevail over statute or constitution due to its unique circumstances.