This United States Supreme Court case involved the interpretation of a contract between two parties. The plaintiff, William H. Smith, had entered into a contract with the defendant, the United States of America, to purchase a tract of land in the state of Arkansas. The contract stated that Smith would pay the full purchase price of the land within two years of the date of the contract. Smith paid the full purchase price within the two-year period, but the defendant refused to convey the title to the land to Smith. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Smith was entitled to the title to the land. The Court reasoned that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that Smith had fulfilled his obligations under the contract. The Court also held that the defendant was estopped from denying the validity of the contract, as it had accepted Smith's payment and had not raised any objections to the contract prior to Smith's payment. The Court concluded that Smith was entitled to the title to the land, and ordered the defendant to convey the title to Smith.

In the case of United States v. Reese, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to uphold a conviction under an 1871 federal law which prohibited certain forms of election interference. He argued that Congress did not have the power to enact such legislation as it was outside their authority granted by Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution and instead fell within state jurisdiction. Furthermore, he noted that if this type of regulation were allowed then Congress could pass laws regulating any aspect of elections in violation of states' rights and would be unconstitutional. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that upholding this conviction would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar issues and should therefore be overturned.