In Woodruff et al. v. Hough et al., 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 the plaintiffs, Woodruff and others, and the defendants, Hough and others. The plaintiffs had agreed to purchase a tract of land from the defendants, and the defendants had agreed to convey the land to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had paid the purchase price, but the defendants had failed to convey the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, and that the parties had entered into the contract in good faith. The Court also found that the defendants had breached the contract by failing to convey the land to the plaintiffs. As a result, the Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the purchase price from the defendants.

In Woodruff et al. v. Hough et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties, which provided that one party would pay for certain improvements on land owned by the other party, could be enforced against third-party purchasers of the land who had no knowledge of or involvement in the contract. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable against innocent third-parties and thus denied relief to Woodruff and his co-plaintiffs. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it was unfair to allow an innocent purchaser of property to benefit from another's labor without paying for it while also allowing them to avoid any contractual obligations associated with said property purchase. He argued further that if such contracts were unenforceable then individuals would have little incentive or protection when entering into agreements regarding real estate transactions as they could never be sure their rights under those agreements would actually be respected by subsequent purchasers of said real estate.