In Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 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 Schoonmaker and Gilmore, and it stated that Schoonmaker would pay Gilmore a certain sum of money in exchange for Gilmore's promise to convey certain real estate to Schoonmaker. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court held that the consideration for the contract was sufficient, as Schoonmaker had agreed to pay a certain sum of money in exchange for Gilmore's promise to convey the real estate. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties were competent adults, and that there was no evidence that either party was under any duress or undue influence when entering into the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Schoonmaker and Gilmore was valid and enforceable.

In Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction in this case because it involved citizens from different states and thus fell under federal jurisdiction. Justice Field dissented, arguing that there was no reason why the state court should be deprived of its authority to hear cases between citizens of different states when they are within its territorial limits and involve matters properly cognizable by it according to local laws. He further argued that if Congress intended for such cases to fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction, then it would have passed legislation making this clear instead of leaving it up to judicial interpretation.