In Ferry & Another v. Livingston, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between the plaintiffs, Ferry & Another, and the defendant, Livingston. The plaintiffs had agreed to sell a parcel of land to the defendant for a certain sum of money. The defendant had agreed to pay the sum of money in installments. The defendant had failed to make the payments as agreed, and the plaintiffs had 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 defendant had failed to make the payments as agreed, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court also held that the defendant was liable for the full amount of the contract, including interest, as the defendant had failed to make the payments as agreed. The Court also held that the defendant was liable for the costs of the lawsuit, as the defendant had failed to make the payments as agreed. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant was valid and enforceable, and that the defendant was liable for the full amount of the contract, including interest and costs of the lawsuit.

In the case of Ferry & Another v. Livingston, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider certain facts and evidence presented by the appellants. He noted that while it was true that there were two separate contracts between the parties, they both related to one transaction and should be considered together as such. Furthermore, he pointed out that under New York law at the time of this dispute, when two or more contracts are made for one transaction then all must be performed simultaneously unless otherwise specified in writing. As no such written agreement existed here, Justice Field concluded that both contracts should have been enforced as if they were part of a single contract and thus reversed judgment against appellant Ferry & Another on their claim for damages resulting from non-performance by respondent Livingston.