Fulkerson & Others v. Holmes & Others was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Fulkerson and Holmes, over a contract for the sale of a tract of land. Fulkerson had agreed to purchase the land from Holmes, but Holmes refused to transfer the deed to Fulkerson. Fulkerson then sued Holmes for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the land. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Holmes had received something of value in exchange for the land. The Court also held that Holmes was liable for breach of contract, as he had failed to transfer the deed to Fulkerson. The Court ordered Holmes to transfer the deed to Fulkerson and to pay damages for the breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Fulkerson and Holmes was valid and enforceable, and that Holmes was liable for breach of contract. The Court ordered Holmes to transfer the deed to Fulkerson and to pay damages for the breach of contract.

In Fulkerson & Others v. Holmes & Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced despite one of the parties having died before it was fully performed. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because of this death, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that when a party dies after entering into an agreement with another party and before performing their part of it, then their executor or administrator should still have to perform under the terms of the original agreement as if they were alive. In his view, allowing contracts to become void upon death would lead to injustice and uncertainty in commercial transactions since no one would know for sure what rights they had until all obligations had been fulfilled by both sides. Furthermore, he noted that there is nothing in either common law or statute which prevents such agreements from being enforceable even after one party has passed away; thus any attempt by courts to do so would amount to judicial legislation rather than interpretation of existing laws.