Atlee v. Packet Company 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 contract between Atlee, a steamboat owner, and Packet Company, a company that operated a steamboat line. Atlee had agreed to provide Packet Company with a steamboat for a period of three years. However, Packet Company refused to pay Atlee for the steamboat, claiming that the contract was invalid. The Supreme Court held that the contract 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 performance of the contract. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not void for lack of capacity, meaning that both parties had the legal capacity to enter into the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Atlee and Packet Company was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, was not void for lack of mutuality, and was not void for lack of capacity.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Atlee v. Packet Company, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under maritime law, a vessel owner is liable for any damage caused by its negligence or fault even if it has been chartered to another party who may have had control of the vessel at the time of an accident. The charter agreement between Atlee and Packet Company did not absolve them from liability for damages resulting from their own negligence; rather, it only provided protection against claims arising out of events outside their control such as acts of God or public enemies. Justice Field further noted that while there were some exceptions to this rule which could potentially provide relief to Packet Company in certain circumstances, none applied here since they had failed to prove any facts which would bring them within those exceptions' scope. Therefore, he concluded that Atlee was entitled to recover damages from Packet Company due to its negligent operation of his vessel and urged reversal on appeal so justice could be served accordingly.