In Jerome v. McCarter, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between the plaintiff, Jerome, and the defendant, McCarter, to purchase a tract of land. Jerome had agreed to pay McCarter $2,000 for the land, and McCarter had agreed to convey the land to Jerome. 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 executed in good faith and that both parties had performed their obligations under the contract. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Jerome was entitled to the land he had purchased from McCarter. The Court also held that Jerome was entitled to damages for any breach of the contract by McCarter.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jerome v. McCarter, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that while it is true that courts have authority over contracts, they do not possess any inherent right or power to modify them without consent from both parties involved. The court should only be able to enforce contracts as written; if either party wishes for changes or modifications, then they must agree upon those terms themselves before seeking legal action. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that allowing judges such broad discretion could open up opportunities for abuse and corruption by giving them too much control over private agreements between individuals and businesses. In conclusion, he warned against expanding judicial powers beyond what is necessary in order for justice to be served fairly and equitably among all parties involved in contract disputes.