Corbin v. Van Brunt 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 Corbin and Van Brunt, in which Corbin agreed to pay Van Brunt a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Van Brunt argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing, while Corbin argued that the contract was valid because it had been orally agreed upon. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Corbin, finding that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the contract was binding because it had been agreed upon by both parties, and that the lack of a written agreement did not invalidate the contract. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in reliance on the contract, and that the contract had been partially performed. As such, the Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Corbin v. Van Brunt, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that under existing law, courts could not interfere with contracts between parties unless they were illegal or fraudulent; however, the majority had decided that a contract could be set aside if it was "unconscionable." This new standard created by the court allowed judges to substitute their own judgment for those of contracting parties and constituted an unwarranted interference with private agreements. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that this ruling gave too much discretion to lower courts who might interpret "unconscionability" differently from one another and create confusion in commercial transactions. In conclusion, he asserted that such decisions should be left up to legislatures rather than judges so as not to undermine public confidence in contractual arrangements.