Dodge v. Knowles was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it was made without consideration. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Dodge, and the defendant, Knowles, in which Knowles agreed to pay Dodge a certain sum of money in exchange for Dodge's promise to pay Knowles a larger sum of money at a later date. The Supreme Court held that the contract was enforceable, even though it was made without consideration. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by a moral obligation, which was sufficient to make it enforceable. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not unconscionable. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Knowles was obligated to pay Dodge the sum of money agreed upon.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Dodge v. Knowles, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that allowing courts to review jury verdicts for sufficiency of evidence would undermine the right of trial by jury as guaranteed by both state constitutions and federal statutes. Furthermore, he noted that such an expansion could result in judges substituting their own judgment for that of juries on matters which should be left solely up to jurors' discretion. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while it might be desirable from time-to-time for courts to intervene when there is no substantial evidence presented at trial, this case did not present such circumstances and thus any interference with the jury's decision was unwarranted.