Bentley v. Coyne is a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether or not an executor has the right to sue for damages caused by a breach of contract. The plaintiff, Bentley, was appointed as executor of his father's estate and entered into a contract with Coyne to purchase certain goods from him on behalf of the estate. When Coyne failed to deliver all of the goods he had agreed upon in their contract, Bentley sued him for damages incurred due to this breach. The court held that an executor does have standing to bring suit against another party who breaches their contractual obligations and can recover any losses suffered as a result thereof. This ruling established precedent allowing other parties in similar situations—such as administrators or trustees—to seek legal recourse when contracts are breached without fear that they will be denied standing in court because they do not hold title over property involved in such disputes.

In Bentley v. Coyne, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority of justices held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration and thus violated public policy. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion on the grounds that there should be no absolute rule against enforcing contracts lacking consideration; instead, each case should be judged on its own merits and circumstances in order to determine whether enforcement is appropriate or not. He argued that when both parties have acted in good faith and with an honest intention to perform their obligations under the contract, then it ought to be enforced regardless of any lack of formal considerations as long as it does not violate public policy or morals.