This case was a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of California. The plaintiffs, Davison and another, claimed that they had purchased the land from the defendants, Von Lingen and others, in 1867. The defendants argued that the sale was invalid because they had not received payment for the land. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants had received payment for the land and that the sale was valid. The Court also held that the defendants had no right to reclaim the land after the sale had been completed. This decision established that a valid sale of land is binding and cannot be revoked by the seller.

In Davison & Another v. Von Lingen & Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even though it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract was valid and enforceable because of its good faith nature and lack of fraud or misrepresentation on either side. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that contracts must always have consideration in order for them to be legally binding and enforceable under law. He argued that allowing such contracts would open up too much potential for abuse by unscrupulous individuals who might take advantage of unsuspecting people with no legal recourse available to them if they were wronged in any way. Furthermore, he argued that there should not be an exception made simply because both sides acted in good faith; rather all contracts should require some form of consideration before being considered legally binding regardless of other factors involved in their formation