In Graffam & Another v. Burgess, 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 between the plaintiffs, Graffam and another, and the defendant, Burgess. The plaintiffs had agreed to pay Burgess a certain sum of money in exchange for the use of a certain piece of land. The defendant argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract had been properly executed and that the parties had intended to be bound by its terms. The Court also found that the consideration for the contract was sufficient and that the plaintiffs had performed their obligations under the contract. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable and that the defendant was not entitled to any relief. The Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the use of the land in accordance with the terms of the contract.

In Graffam & Another v. Burgess, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed of land in Maine had been validly executed and delivered to the plaintiff. The majority opinion held that the deed was not valid due to lack of delivery, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that there were sufficient facts presented by both parties which showed that delivery had occurred; thus, he concluded that it should be up to a jury to decide if delivery actually happened or not. Furthermore, he noted that even though some formalities may have been lacking in regards to execution and delivery of deeds at common law, they could still be enforced under certain circumstances when justice required it - as seemed appropriate here given all evidence presented before the court.