Egbert v. Lippmann 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 dispute between Egbert and Lippmann, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of real estate. Egbert had agreed to pay Lippmann a certain sum of money for the property, but Lippmann refused to accept the payment. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Egbert and Lippmann 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 property. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Lippmann had received something of value in exchange for the property. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as both parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court found that the contract was binding on both parties and that Lippmann was obligated to accept the payment from Egbert. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Egbert and Lippmann was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration and was not void for lack of consideration or mutuality of obligation. The Court held that Lippmann was obligated to accept the payment from Egbert.

In the case of Egbert v. Lippmann, Chief Justice Waite delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and three other justices. He argued that the majority's decision was based upon an erroneous interpretation of New York law which had been in effect since 1829. According to Chief Justice Waite, this law did not provide for a lien against personal property unless it was specifically mentioned in the contract between parties or if there were some special circumstances present such as fraud or misrepresentation by one party. Since neither condition applied to this particular case, he concluded that no lien existed and thus the plaintiff could not recover any damages from defendant’s estate. Furthermore, he noted that even if a lien did exist under New York law at the time of judgment, it would have expired after six years due to its statutory limitation period; therefore making recovery impossible regardless. In conclusion, Chief Justice Waite believed that justice should be served according to established laws rather than through judicial discretion alone and urged his fellow justices to reconsider their ruling accordingly