In Morrison et al. v. Jackson, 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, Morrison, and the defendant, Jackson. Morrison had agreed to pay Jackson a certain sum of money in exchange for a tract of land. Jackson had agreed to convey the land to Morrison upon receipt of the money. However, Jackson had failed to convey the land to Morrison, and Morrison had sued to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was supported by consideration, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract in good faith. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not in violation of any law. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Morrison was entitled to the land as agreed upon in the contract.

In Morrison et al. v. Jackson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of them had died before it was completed. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it had not been fully executed by both parties prior to death and thus did not meet all of the requirements for enforceability under state law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts should generally be upheld if they are valid at their inception and have been partially performed by both parties prior to death or other intervening events which prevent completion of performance on either side. He argued that such contracts should still be considered binding even though full execution has become impossible due to circumstances beyond either party's control, as long as there is evidence showing an intent on behalf of both sides to enter into a legally binding agreement in good faith at some point in time prior to those intervening events occurring.