In Whiteside et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to take possession of a parcel of land in the state of Arkansas. The land had been granted to the United States by the state of Arkansas in 1837, but the title had never been perfected. The plaintiffs argued that the United States had no right to take possession of the land without first perfecting the title. The Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to take possession of the land without perfecting the title. The Court reasoned that the United States had a right to take possession of the land under the terms of the grant, and that the title could be perfected at a later date. The Court also held that the United States had the right to take possession of the land without paying compensation to the plaintiffs, as the grant did not require the United States to do so. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to take possession of the land without perfecting the title or paying compensation to the plaintiffs. The Court reasoned that the United States had a right to take possession of the land under the terms of the grant, and that the title could be perfected at a later date.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Whiteside et al. v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless it is found to be illegal or against public policy, which he did not believe was the case here. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been some ambiguity in the language of the contract, it would have been up to a jury - rather than judges - to interpret its meaning and decide whether any damages were due as a result of breach of contract. In his view, this case presented no evidence of fraud or illegality on either side; therefore, Justice Field believed that enforcing contracts as written was essential for upholding fairness and protecting private property rights under U.S law.