ZECKENDORF v. JOHNSON was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of real estate. The plaintiff, Zeckendorf, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Johnson, to purchase a tract of land in the state of New York. Johnson had agreed to sell the land for a certain sum of money, but had failed to deliver the deed to Zeckendorf. Zeckendorf then brought suit against Johnson, seeking to enforce the contract and recover damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Johnson was liable for damages for breach of contract. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that Johnson had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract. The Court also held that Zeckendorf was entitled to recover damages for the breach of contract, and that Johnson was liable for the full amount of the purchase price. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Zeckendorf was entitled to recover damages for breach of contract, and that Johnson was liable for the full amount of the purchase price. The Court also held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Johnson had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Zeckendorf v. Johnson, arguing that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not subject to judicial interpretation. He argued that the court had no authority to modify or alter the terms of an agreement between two parties, even if it was deemed "unconscionable" by modern standards. The majority's decision would allow courts to rewrite contracts based on their own subjective views of what is fair and equitable, which could lead to arbitrary results depending on who happened to be sitting on the bench at any given time. Justice Field believed this would undermine public confidence in our legal system and encourage people not to trust contracts they enter into with others since they may end up being rewritten by judges later down the line.