Kirtland v. Hotchkiss was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Kirtland, and the defendant, Hotchkiss, in which Hotchkiss agreed to pay Kirtland a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain amount of land. Kirtland argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while Hotchkiss argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was supported by consideration, which is an essential element of a valid contract. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in good faith and had relied on the contract in their dealings with each other. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was not invalidated by the fact that it was not in writing, as the parties had acted in a manner that indicated that they had intended to be bound by the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Kirtland and Hotchkiss was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration and that the parties had acted in a manner that indicated that they had intended to be bound by the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established legal precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of this Court, a contract must be interpreted according to its plain language and not by any extrinsic evidence or parol testimony offered by either party. In this case, he noted that the contract clearly stated that it was for "the sale of all my right title and interest" in certain real estate owned by Kirtland; thus, there could be no doubt as to what property was being conveyed. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if some ambiguity existed with respect to the terms of the agreement between Kirtland and Hotchkiss (which he did not believe), then such ambiguities should have been resolved against Hotchkiss since she drafted it without consulting her attorney or obtaining his advice on its contents. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that because there were no grounds upon which one might interpret the contract differently than how it had been written down at face value—and because doing so would lead to an unjust result—he believed justice required reversing judgment for defendant below and remanding for further proceedings consistent with his dissent.