In Glenny v. Langdon, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the husband was liable for breach of contract.

In the case of Glenny v. Langdon, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from one party to another was valid and enforceable when it had been signed by only one of two joint tenants. The majority opinion held that the deed in question was not binding because both parties had not signed it, but Justice Field dissented on this point. He argued that under common law principles, if there is no evidence of fraud or collusion between the parties involved in a transaction such as this one then any instrument executed by either party should be considered valid and binding upon them both. Furthermore, he noted that even though some states have adopted statutes requiring signatures from all joint tenants for deeds to be effective, those laws did not apply here since they were enacted after this particular transaction took place. Therefore he concluded that despite its lack of dual signatures, the deed at issue should still be enforced according to its terms as written.