Drew & Another v. Grinnell & 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 two parties, Grinnell and Drew, who had entered into a contract in which Grinnell agreed to pay Drew a certain amount of money in exchange for certain services. Drew had performed the services as agreed, but Grinnell refused to pay the agreed-upon amount. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties 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 other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. The Court also held that Grinnell was liable for the amount of money that he had agreed to pay Drew. The Court found that Grinnell had breached the contract by refusing to pay the agreed-upon amount and that Drew was entitled to damages for the breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Grinnell and Drew was valid and enforceable and that Grinnell was liable for the amount of money that he had agreed to pay Drew.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Drew & Another v. Grinnell & Another, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that while it is true that courts have authority over matters involving trusts, this case did not involve any trust or fiduciary relationship between the parties and thus should be decided by a jury instead of being determined as a matter of law by the court. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been such an arrangement between them, it would still be inappropriate for the court to decide on its own whether or not one party had breached their duty without allowing either side to present evidence before making such a determination. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting how dangerous it could be for judges to make decisions based on their own personal opinions rather than relying upon established legal principles when deciding cases like these.