In Jewell v. Knight, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Jewell, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Knight, to purchase a tract of land. The contract provided that Jewell would pay Knight a certain sum of money for the land, and that Knight would convey the land to Jewell upon payment. However, Knight refused to convey the land to Jewell after he had paid the agreed-upon sum. Jewell then brought suit against Knight, seeking to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to all of 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. Therefore, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Jewell was entitled to the land he had purchased.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jewell v. Knight, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether it has been fully performed or not. Furthermore, he maintained that if one party breaches their contractual obligations then they are liable for damages to the other party as a result of this breach. In this case, Justice Field believed that Jewell had breached his contract with Knight by failing to pay him for services rendered and thus should have been held liable for damages resulting from this breach. He concluded by stating that while there may be some circumstances where contracts can be voided due to fraud or misrepresentation, these were not present in this case and therefore Jewell should still have been held responsible for any losses suffered by Knight as a result of his failure to fulfill his contractual obligations