Davies v. Corbin & Another 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 Davies and Corbin, in which Davies agreed to pay Corbin a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Corbin argued that the contract was valid, while Davies argued that it was not. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Corbin, finding that the contract was valid. The Court held that the contract was binding on both parties, and that Davies was obligated to pay the amount of money specified in the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of consideration, as the consideration was sufficient to make the contract binding. In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the contract between Davies and Corbin was valid and binding on both parties. The Court held that Davies was obligated to pay the amount of money specified in the contract, and that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of consideration.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Davies v. Corbin & Another, arguing that the majority's interpretation of the contract between Davies and Corbin was incorrect. He argued that under California law, a contract could be formed without an exchange of money or other consideration if there was mutual assent to its terms. In this case, he believed there had been such mutual assent when Davies agreed to pay for his share of expenses incurred by Corbin during their joint venture in mining claims. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if no formal agreement had been made between them at all, it would still have been reasonable for a court to imply one from their conduct; thus making it binding on both parties as though they had actually entered into an agreement with each other. Finally, he concluded by stating that since neither party should be allowed to take advantage of any ambiguity or uncertainty surrounding the nature of their relationship and obligations towards each other - especially given how long they were associated together - then justice demanded that both parties should bear equally whatever losses may have resulted from their joint enterprise regardless whether either party formally assumed responsibility for them or not.