In the case of Smelting Company v. Kemp, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, the Smelting Company, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Kemp, to purchase a certain quantity of ore from him. The contract stated that the ore was to be delivered to the Smelting Company at a certain price, and that the ore was to be of a certain quality. Kemp failed to deliver the ore as agreed, and the Smelting Company sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Kemp was liable for damages for his breach of the contract. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the Smelting Company had relied on the contract in good faith, and that Kemp had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract. The Court held that the Smelting Company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and that Kemp was liable for those damages. The Court also held that the Smelting Company was entitled to an injunction to prevent Kemp from breaching the contract in the future. The Court thus affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the Smelting Company.

In Smelting Company v. Kemp, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that included an arbitration clause could be enforced by a court of law. The majority opinion held that it could not be enforced because the contract did not specify which court would have jurisdiction over any disputes arising from it. Justice Field dissented, arguing that courts should enforce contracts with arbitration clauses as long as they are valid and do not violate public policy or other laws. He argued further that if one party fails to abide by the terms of such a contract, then the other party can seek relief in court without having to go through costly and time-consuming arbitration proceedings first. In conclusion, Justice Field believed courts should uphold contracts with valid arbitration clauses unless there is some legal reason why they cannot do so.