Langdon v. Sherwood 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, Langdon, and the defendant, Sherwood, in which Langdon agreed to pay Sherwood a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. The contract was signed by both parties, but Langdon failed to pay the amount due. Sherwood then sued Langdon for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was signed by both parties and that Langdon had accepted the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that Langdon had failed to pay the amount due and that this constituted a breach of contract. The Court held that Sherwood was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court's decision in Langdon v. Sherwood established that a contract between two parties is valid and enforceable if it is signed by both parties and accepted by one of the parties. The Court also established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This case serves as an important precedent for contract law in the United States.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Langdon v. Sherwood, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and should be overturned. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding upon them both, regardless of whether or not it has been approved by a third party such as an executor or administrator. Furthermore, he argued that if one party breaches their contractual obligations then they are liable for damages to the other party even if there was no consideration given for said breach. Finally, Justice Field noted that while courts may refuse to enforce contracts which are against public policy or illegal in nature, this case did not involve any such considerations and thus should have been enforced according to its terms.