This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between Enoch Long, Abel Sturtevant, and John Robinson and Peggy F. Patton. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties in which Long, Sturtevant, and Robinson agreed to pay Patton a certain sum of money in exchange for her relinquishing her right to a tract of land. Patton subsequently brought suit against the three men, claiming that they had failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Patton, finding that the contract was valid and that the three men had indeed failed to fulfill their obligations. The Court held that the contract was binding and that Patton was entitled to the money she was promised. The Court also held that the three men were liable for any damages that Patton had suffered as a result of their breach of contract. This ruling established that contracts must be honored and that parties who fail to fulfill their obligations can be held liable for any damages that result from their breach.

In Enoch Long, Abel Sturtevant and John Robinson v. Peggy F. Patton, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed of conveyance from an individual to another was valid when it had been signed by only one party rather than both parties as required by law. The majority opinion held that the deed in question was not valid because it had not been signed by both parties; however, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that there were sufficient facts present which indicated that the other party intended to be bound by its terms even though they did not sign it themselves. He noted that although signing a document is generally necessary for validity under most circumstances, he believed exceptions could be made if all of the relevant evidence showed intent to enter into an agreement regardless of lack of signature. In this case, Justice Field found such evidence existed and thus concluded that despite lacking signatures from both parties involved in the transaction at issue here, it should still be considered legally binding due to their mutual intentions being clear enough without them having done so formally via signing documents