In Halfterty v. Wilmering, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable even though it had not been signed by both parties. The plaintiff in this case had agreed to sell certain real estate to the defendant for $2,000 but did not sign any document memorializing their agreement. Despite this lack of signature, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove an oral contract existed between them and thus could be enforced against either party. The court reasoned that since both parties were aware of their obligations under the agreement and acted upon them accordingly, they should be bound by its terms despite no written record being present. This decision established precedent for future cases involving contracts without signatures or other forms of formal documentation as long as there is proof showing mutual understanding between all involved parties regarding what has been agreed upon.

In Halfterty v. Wilmering, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving real property located in another state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction and thus dismissed the appeal. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that under certain circumstances, such as when there is an agreement between two parties regarding land situated in different states or territories of the United States, then it should be within the power of any one of those states to enforce its laws with respect to such agreements even if they involve citizens from other states or territories. He further stated that while he agreed with much of what was said by his colleagues on this issue, he felt compelled to dissent because he believed their interpretation went too far and would lead to unnecessary confusion for litigants who are involved in interstate disputes concerning real estate transactions.