Davenport v. Dows was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Davenport, and the defendant, Dows, in which Davenport agreed to pay Dows a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain amount of land. Davenport paid the money, but Dows refused to transfer the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract 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 against public policy, as it did not involve any illegal activity. The Court concluded that Davenport was entitled to the land he had contracted for, and that Dows was obligated to transfer it to him. The Court also held that Davenport was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, as Dows had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract.

In the case of Davenport v. Dows, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it would lead to unjust results in cases where one party has already substantially fulfilled their obligations under a contract but is unable to receive any compensation due to its unenforceability. He argued instead for an interpretation of existing law which allowed courts to recognize partial performance as evidence of consideration and therefore make contracts enforceable even if they are incompletely executed or have yet to be fully performed.