Roth v. Ehman 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 dispute between two parties, Roth and Ehman, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Roth had agreed to purchase the land from Ehman for a certain sum of money, but Ehman later refused to sell the land. Roth then sued Ehman for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Roth and Ehman was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Roth and Ehman was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, mutuality, and consideration, and that it was not void for any of these reasons.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Roth v. Ehman, arguing that the majority had erred in its interpretation of a deed and thus failed to uphold the contract as written. He argued that when interpreting contracts, courts should not look beyond what is stated on paper but rather focus solely on what was agreed upon by both parties at the time of signing. In this case, he believed that there were two distinct parts to the agreement: one granting an easement for a road across land owned by Ehman and another granting rights to use timber from those lands for building purposes only. The majority had interpreted these two clauses together as if they formed one single grant; however, Justice Field argued that it was clear from reading them separately that each clause granted different rights with no connection between them other than being included within one document. Therefore, he concluded that since there was nothing in either clause indicating any intent or understanding between Ehman and Roth regarding timber usage beyond building purposes, then such usage could not be enforced against him without violating his right under contract law to have his agreement honored according to its plain language.