In Mitchell v. Moore, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a man named Mitchell and a man named Moore. Mitchell had agreed to pay Moore a certain sum of money in exchange for Moore's promise to deliver a certain quantity of goods. Moore had failed to deliver the goods, and Mitchell sued to recover the money he had paid. 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 Mitchell had paid the money in good faith, and that Moore had failed to deliver the goods. Therefore, the Court held that Mitchell was entitled to recover the money he had paid.

In Mitchell v. Moore, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced when one of them had died before it could be completed. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because it had not been fully executed by both parties prior to death and thus did not meet all of the requirements for a valid contract under state law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that even though only one party had signed the agreement, there were sufficient facts present in order to establish an implied promise on behalf of both parties which should have been recognized as legally binding. He argued that since each party clearly intended to enter into an agreement and they acted upon their intentions by taking steps towards completing it, then those actions should have been considered enough evidence for enforcing its terms despite any technical deficiencies with respect to formalities such as signatures or other writing requirements imposed by state law at the time.