Cotzhausen v. Nazro 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 a German immigrant, John Cotzhausen, and a man named Nazro. Cotzhausen had agreed to pay Nazro a certain amount of money in exchange for a piece of land. However, the contract was never completed and the land was never transferred. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the land. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and had exchanged something of value. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of capacity, as Cotzhausen was a competent adult and had the capacity to enter into a contract. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of delivery, as the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and had exchanged something of value. The Court ultimately held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Cotzhausen was entitled to the land he had agreed to purchase. This case established the principle that contracts are valid and enforceable when they are supported by consideration, are not void for lack of capacity, and are not void for lack of delivery.

In Cotzhausen v. Nazro, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract in question was not enforceable because there had been no consideration given for its formation. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that although consideration is usually required for contracts to be valid, there are exceptions where courts have found them binding even without any exchange of value or benefit. He noted that such cases often involve agreements between family members or close friends who trust each other implicitly and do not need an exchange of something tangible as proof of their commitment to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. In his view, this case should fall into one of those exceptions since both parties were related by marriage and thus trusted each other enough to enter into a legally-binding arrangement without requiring anything in return from either side.