In Coney & Another v. Winchell, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between the plaintiffs, Coney and another, and the defendant, Winchell. The contract was for the sale of a tract of land in Michigan. The plaintiffs argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while the defendant argued that it was not. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the defendant had received something of value in exchange for the land. The Court also held that the defendant was not entitled to any damages for breach of contract, as the plaintiffs had not breached the contract. The Court found that the defendant had failed to perform his obligations under the contract, and that the plaintiffs had acted in good faith in attempting to fulfill their obligations. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the defendant was not entitled to any damages for breach of contract. The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

In Coney & Another v. Winchell, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by two non-residents against another non-resident in relation to a contract made in the state of New York. The majority opinion held that the state court did have such jurisdiction and affirmed its decision. Justice Field dissented from this opinion on the basis that it violated due process rights under Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in several States”. He argued that since none of those involved were residents or domiciled within New York at any point during their transaction, they should not be subject to suit there without their consent as it would deny them equal protection under law for being citizens outside said state.