In Mattoon v. McGrew, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiff, Mattoon, and the defendant, McGrew. Mattoon had agreed to sell McGrew a tract of land for a certain sum of money. McGrew had paid the money, but Mattoon had failed to deliver the deed to the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the parties had entered into a binding agreement, and that McGrew had fulfilled his part of the bargain by paying the agreed-upon sum of money. The Court further held that Mattoon was obligated to deliver the deed to the land, and that McGrew was entitled to damages for Mattoon's failure to do so. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Mattoon and McGrew was valid and enforceable, and that McGrew was entitled to damages for Mattoon's failure to deliver the deed to the land.

In the case of Mattoon v. McGrew, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one party against another when it appeared that there had been fraud in its execution. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that while fraud may have occurred in executing the contract, it did not necessarily invalidate all of its terms or render them unenforceable. He argued instead that if any part of a contract is valid and has been executed then both parties should be bound to fulfill their obligations under it regardless of how they came into existence or what fraudulent means were used to obtain them. Furthermore, he noted that allowing only partial enforcement would create an incentive for unscrupulous actors who might otherwise seek to take advantage of unsuspecting victims through fraudulent contracts without fear of legal repercussions due to their inability to collect damages from those who wronged them.