In Britton v. Niccolls, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a landowner, Britton, and a tenant, Niccolls. The contract stated that Niccolls would pay Britton a certain amount of money for the use of the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in good faith and that both parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was not against public policy and that it was not unconscionable. The Court also held that Britton was entitled to damages for breach of contract. The Court reasoned that Britton had suffered a loss due to Niccolls' failure to fulfill his obligations under the contract. The Court also held that Britton was entitled to interest on the damages awarded. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Britton and Niccolls was valid and enforceable. The Court also held that Britton was entitled to damages for breach of contract and interest on the damages awarded.

In Britton v. Niccolls, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of land in California that had been made by two individuals who were not married at the time but later got married was valid or invalid. The majority opinion held that it was valid and could be enforced against both parties even though they were not legally married when it was executed. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that under California law, such an agreement would only be enforceable if both parties had been legally married at the time of execution. He argued further that since there is no evidence in the record indicating otherwise, then this deed should have been declared void as a matter of law and thus unenforceable against either party.