In Smith and Others v. Carrington and Others, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning an agreement between two parties to settle a debt dispute. The plaintiff argued that they had entered into an agreement with the defendant in which they would pay off their debts over time, but that the defendant had refused to accept payment according to this arrangement. The court found for the plaintiffs, ruling that both parties were bound by their original contract and ordering them to abide by its terms. This decision established important precedent regarding contracts in American law; it affirmed that agreements made between two or more parties are binding even if one party later refuses to honor them.

In Smith and Others v. Carrington and Others, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants. The majority opinion held that a contract between two parties was binding even if one party had not received full payment for their services as long as they accepted partial payment with knowledge of the other's inability to pay more at that time. Justice Samuel Chase dissented from this ruling, arguing that it would be unjust to allow a person who had not fulfilled their contractual obligations to benefit from an agreement made under such circumstances. He argued further that contracts should only be enforced when both parties have fully performed all duties required by them according to its terms or else no legal obligation could arise out of it.