Jarrolt v. Moberly 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 contract between the plaintiff, Jarrolt, and the defendant, Moberly, for the sale of a tract of land. Jarrolt had agreed to pay Moberly $2,000 for the land, and Moberly had agreed to deliver the deed to the land to Jarrolt. However, when Moberly failed to deliver the deed, Jarrolt sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties 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 other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not void for lack of a seal, meaning that the contract was still valid even though it was not signed with a seal. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Jarrolt and Moberly was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, was not void for lack of mutuality, and was not void for lack of a seal.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jarrolt v. Moberly, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that the court had no jurisdiction to hear this case because it did not involve a federal question or arise under any law of Congress. The dispute between the parties arose out of a contract made by them for services rendered, which is purely a matter of state law and does not come within any act of Congress nor present any federal question. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some doubt as to whether or not this case involved a federal question, it would still be improper for the Supreme Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction since neither party asked for such review when they filed their original complaint in circuit court; thus depriving both parties from having an opportunity to litigate all issues before trial on appeal. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while he agreed with much of what was said in support of reversing judgment below, he could not agree with allowing appeals where none were requested at trial level and therefore must dissent from granting relief here without further argumentation on merits underlying claim itself