Bachman & Others v. Lawson & Others 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 the plaintiffs, Bachman & Others, and the defendants, Lawson & Others, for the sale of a tract of land. The plaintiffs argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while the defendants argued that the contract was invalid due to a lack of consideration. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by sufficient consideration, as the plaintiffs had agreed to pay the defendants a sum of money for the land. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the defendants had agreed to transfer the title to the land to the plaintiffs. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by sufficient consideration, and that the defendants had agreed to transfer the title to the land to the plaintiffs. The Court thus affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bachman & Others v. Lawson & Others, arguing that the majority had misconstrued a provision of an 1845 act of Congress concerning land grants in Arkansas. He argued that the majority's interpretation was too narrow and failed to consider other relevant provisions of the act which should have been taken into account when interpreting it. Furthermore, he noted that if their interpretation were correct then it would lead to absurd results as some individuals who had already received title from prior grantees would be deprived of their property rights without due process or compensation for losses incurred. Justice Field concluded by asserting that while there may have been ambiguities in certain parts of the statute, they could not be used as justification for disregarding its plain language and intent; instead any such ambiguities should be resolved through a more liberal construction so as to avoid injustice and uphold existing property rights whenever possible.