In Coppell v. Hall, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The case involved a contract between Coppell and Hall, in which Hall agreed to pay Coppell a certain sum of money in exchange for the use of Coppell's land. The contract was not in writing, and Hall failed to make the payments as agreed. Coppell sued Hall for breach of contract, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Coppell and Hall was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also noted that the contract was not illegal or against public policy, and that it was not necessary for the contract to be in writing in order to be enforceable. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Coppell was entitled to recover the money that Hall had agreed to pay him. The Court's decision established that oral contracts are valid and enforceable, provided that they are supported by consideration and are not illegal or against public policy.

In Coppell v. Hall, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in another state could be enforced in the District of Columbia. The majority opinion held that it could not, as Congress had not given permission for such contracts to be enforced there. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that since Congress had never expressly prohibited such contracts from being enforced in the District of Columbia, they should still be allowed under common law principles. He further noted that if Congress wished to prohibit them then it would have done so explicitly rather than leaving their status ambiguous and subjecting citizens who enter into these agreements with uncertainty about their enforceability.