In the case of Huntington v. Saunders, 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 plaintiff, Huntington, and the defendant, Saunders. Huntington had agreed to pay Saunders a certain sum of money in exchange for Saunders' promise to convey certain real estate to Huntington. The contract was signed by both parties, but Saunders failed to convey the real estate as promised. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the contract had been signed by both parties, and that Huntington had already paid Saunders the agreed-upon sum of money. Therefore, the Court held that Huntington was entitled to the real estate as promised in the contract.

In the case of Huntington v. Saunders, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been signed by one party but not yet delivered to the other. The majority opinion held that since delivery is an essential part of any valid contract, this particular agreement was unenforceable due to its lack of delivery and therefore did not create any legal obligations for either party. In dissent, Justice Field argued that while delivery may indeed be necessary in some cases, there are circumstances where a signature alone can suffice as proof of an enforceable agreement. He further noted that if such agreements were deemed invalid simply because they lacked physical delivery then many contracts would become void despite having been agreed upon by both parties in good faith and without fraud or coercion involved on either side.