Humes v. Scruggs was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Humes and Scruggs, over a contract for the sale of a tract of land. Humes had agreed to sell the land to Scruggs for a certain sum of money, but Scruggs failed to pay the full amount. Humes then sued Scruggs for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also held that the contract was binding on both parties, and that Scruggs was liable for breach of contract. The Court noted that Scruggs had failed to pay the full amount of the purchase price, and that this failure constituted a breach of the contract. The Court also noted that Humes was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Humes and Scruggs was valid and enforceable, and that Scruggs was liable for breach of contract. The Court also held that Humes was entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

In Humes v. Scruggs, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion that violating a state law would render any contract unenforceable by courts within said state, he argued that if both parties to a contract voluntarily performed their obligations under it then they should still be able to seek relief in federal court for breach of contract regardless of whether or not there was an underlying violation of state law. He further noted that allowing individuals to sue for breach of contract even when there is no remedy available at common law serves as an important check against fraud and other forms of misconduct which can occur during contractual negotiations without proper oversight from courts or other authorities.