Brick v. Brick was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two brothers, John and William Brick, who had entered into a contract in which John agreed to pay William a certain sum of money in exchange for William's promise to pay John a certain sum of money at a later date. The contract was not in writing and was not witnessed by anyone. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two brothers was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, which is an essential element of a valid contract. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy and that the parties had acted in good faith. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to the lack of a writing or witnesses. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration and that the parties had acted in good faith. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the two brothers was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, was not against public policy, and that the parties had acted in good faith.

In the case of Brick v. Brick, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of the law and would lead to unjust results. He noted that under prior decisions, courts had held that when two parties enter into a contract with each other, they are both bound by its terms regardless of any subsequent changes in circumstances or conditions. In this case, however, the majority found that because one party had changed his mind about fulfilling his part of the agreement after it was made and before performance began on either side, he could not be held liable for breach of contract. This ruling ran counter to established precedent and would allow individuals to avoid their contractual obligations simply by changing their minds at any time before performance begins without consequence. As such, Justice Field concluded that this decision should be reversed as it did not reflect sound legal principles nor provide justice for those who seek redress through our court system