Higgins & Another v. McCrea was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Higgins and McCrea, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Higgins had agreed to pay McCrea a certain amount of money for the land, but McCrea had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Higgins then sued McCrea for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Higgins and McCrea 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 McCrea had not delivered the deed to the land. The Court concluded that Higgins was entitled to recover the amount of money he had agreed to pay for the land.

In Higgins & Another v. McCrea, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties to purchase and sell land could be enforced when one of the parties had died before it was completed. The majority opinion held that since the contract had not been fully performed by both sides, it could not be enforced against either party's estate after death. Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that contracts are binding upon all successors in interest of those who entered into them, regardless of whether or not they were fully executed prior to death. He argued that if a person enters into an agreement for future performance and dies before completing their part, then their heirs should still be bound by its terms as long as there is no fraud involved in making such an arrangement. Furthermore, he reasoned that allowing estates to escape liability for incomplete contracts would encourage dishonesty among contracting parties and lead to uncertainty about contractual obligations after someone passes away.