In Rogers v. Keokuk, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not performed their obligations under it. The case involved a contract between William Rogers and John Keokuk for the sale of land in Iowa. Under this agreement, Rogers was obligated to pay $1,000 for the property but failed to do so within six months as required by law. In response, Keokuk sued him for breach of contract and sought damages from him in court. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that although there had been no performance on either side at that time due to Rogers' failure to make payment, he still remained liable under his contractual obligation and must pay damages accordingly despite his non-performance. This decision established an important precedent regarding contracts which has been followed ever since: even if one party fails or refuses to perform their duties under a validly formed agreement they can still be held accountable through legal action taken against them by another party who is seeking enforcement of its terms

In Rogers v. Keokuk, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in Iowa Territory before it became part of the United States was valid under federal law. The majority opinion held that since the contract had been made prior to statehood, it could not be enforced by a court of equity and must instead be decided according to local laws. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress has exclusive power over territories and therefore should have jurisdiction over contracts entered into within them regardless of when they were formed. He argued further that if such contracts are allowed to stand after statehood is achieved then there would be no incentive for people living in territories to enter into agreements with each other as their rights may not be protected once they become states.