In Glenny v. Langdon, 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 an agreement between the plaintiff, Glenny, and the defendant, Langdon, for the sale of a parcel of land. Glenny had agreed to sell the land to Langdon for a certain sum of money, and Langdon had agreed to pay the sum in installments. However, Langdon had failed to make the payments as agreed, and Glenny had sued to recover the money. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was in writing and had been signed by both parties, and that it was supported by consideration. The Court also noted that the contract was not illegal or against public policy. Therefore, the Court held that Glenny was entitled to recover the money due under the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Glenny v. Langdon, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to confusion in future cases. He argued that a contract must be interpreted as it is written, not according to what one of the parties may have intended or believed at the time they entered into it. Furthermore, he noted that if courts were allowed to interpret contracts based on subjective intent rather than objective language then there would be no end to litigation over such matters. Finally, Justice Field stated that while equity could sometimes provide relief from harsh results due to technicalities of law, this case did not present any special circumstances warranting an exception from established rules of interpretation for contracts.