In Tiernan v. Rinker, 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 Tiernan and Rinker, and it stated that Tiernan would pay Rinker a certain sum of money in exchange for Rinker's promise to convey certain real estate to Tiernan. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court found that the consideration for the contract was sufficient, as Tiernan had agreed to pay Rinker a certain sum of money in exchange for the real estate. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties had entered into the contract in good faith, and that there was no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Tiernan and Rinker was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous, that the consideration was sufficient, and that there was no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Tiernan v. Rinker, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and should be reversed. He argued that a court of equity had exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving trusts, and since this case involved a trust created by an express agreement between two parties, it fell under the purview of such courts. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were no express agreement creating a trust in this case, as long as one party held property for another with their consent or knowledge then it would still fall within equitable jurisdiction. As such, Justice Field concluded that the lower court had acted properly when they assumed jurisdiction over this matter and granted relief to Tiernan on his claim against Rinker; thus reversing its decision would be improper according to existing law.