In Taylor & Another v. Davis' Administratrix, 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 an agreement between the plaintiff, Taylor, and the defendant, Davis, in which Taylor agreed to pay Davis a certain sum of money in exchange for a tract of land. The defendant's administratrix argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing and was not signed by both parties. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by sufficient consideration and that the parties had acted in good faith. Furthermore, the Court noted that the parties had acted in reliance on the contract and that the defendant had accepted the payment from the plaintiff. As such, the Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Taylor and Davis was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by sufficient consideration and that the parties had acted in good faith. Furthermore, the Court noted that the parties had acted in reliance on the contract and that the defendant had accepted the payment from the plaintiff. As such, the Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable.

In Taylor & Another v. Davis' Administratrix, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction and affirmed its decision. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion and argued that it violated Article III of the Constitution which grants original jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states exclusively to federal courts. He further argued that Congress has no authority to grant such power to state courts as doing so would be an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power by Congress. As such, he concluded that only federal courts can exercise original jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states and thus reversed the lower court's ruling on jurisdictional grounds alone without reaching any other issues raised by either party in their briefs or arguments before the Court.