Abendroth v. Van Dolsen was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Abendroth and Van Dolsen, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Abendroth had agreed to purchase the land from Van Dolsen for a certain sum of money, but Van Dolsen refused to accept the payment and refused to transfer the deed to Abendroth. Abendroth then sued Van Dolsen for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Abendroth and Van Dolsen was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Van Dolsen had received something of value in exchange for his promise to transfer the deed. The Court also held that Abendroth was entitled to damages for Van Dolsen's breach of contract. The Court found that Abendroth had suffered a loss due to Van Dolsen's refusal to accept payment and transfer the deed, and that Abendroth was entitled to recover the amount of money he had agreed to pay for the land. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Abendroth and Van Dolsen was valid and enforceable, and that Abendroth was entitled to damages for Van Dolsen's breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Abendroth v. Van Dolsen, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under California law, a married woman had no right to convey real estate without her husband's consent or signature on the deed of conveyance. The majority held that since Mrs. Abendroth signed as "Mrs." rather than "Mrs. John Abendroth," she could not be considered legally married and therefore did not need her husband's consent for the sale of land to Mr. Van Dolsen; however, Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation of California law because it would lead to absurd results if applied generally across all cases involving married women selling property without their husbands' signatures or consents - such an interpretation would essentially allow any woman who signs documents using only her first name and last name (without mentioning her marital status) to sell property without obtaining permission from their husbands first, which is clearly contrary to existing laws in many states including California at the time this case was decided by the Supreme Court in 1888.. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that Mrs. Abendroth needed both parties' signatures on a deed before it could be validly conveyed according to state law at issue here; thus he dissented from his colleagues’ ruling against Mr Van Dolsen