Blount v. Windley 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 Blount and Windley, in which Blount agreed to pay Windley a certain amount of money for the purchase of a tract of land. Windley had previously sold the land to another party, and Blount argued that the contract was invalid because Windley had no right to sell the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, and that Windley had the right to sell the land. The Court reasoned that Windley had the right to sell the land because he had a valid title to the land, and that the contract was valid because it was made in good faith and with consideration. The Court also held that Blount was not entitled to any damages for the breach of the contract, as he had not suffered any actual damages. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Blount and Windley was valid, and that Windley had the right to sell the land. The Court also held that Blount was not entitled to any damages for the breach of the contract.

In Blount v. Windley, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced despite one of them having violated the law in order to enter into it. The majority opinion held that since the contract had been entered into by both parties and consideration had been given, it should be enforced regardless of any illegalities involved in its formation. Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that enforcing such contracts would encourage people to break laws without consequence and thus undermine public policy. He argued that if courts were allowed to enforce contracts formed through illegal means then individuals would have no incentive not to violate laws when entering into agreements as they knew their actions could still be legally recognized by a court of law.