Elastic Fabrics Company v. Smith 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 Elastic Fabrics Company and Smith, in which Smith agreed to purchase a certain amount of fabric from Elastic Fabrics Company. Smith failed to pay for the fabric, and Elastic Fabrics Company sued Smith for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Elastic Fabrics Company and Smith 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 the same rights and obligations under the contract. The Court also held that Elastic Fabrics Company was entitled to damages for Smith's breach of contract. The Court found that Elastic Fabrics Company had suffered a loss due to Smith's failure to pay for the fabric, and that Elastic Fabrics Company was entitled to be compensated for that loss. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Elastic Fabrics Company and Smith was valid and enforceable, and that Elastic Fabrics Company was entitled to damages for Smith's breach of contract.

In Elastic Fabrics Company v. Smith, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing statute. The majority opinion held that the contract was unenforceable because it lacked consideration and violated a state law; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that while there may have been no actual consideration for the agreement, its terms were not so unreasonable as to make them void under common law principles or public policy considerations. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been some kind of legal infirmity in the agreement itself due to lack of consideration or statutory violation, such defects should not prevent enforcement unless they are substantial enough to render performance impossible or illegal under applicable laws. In his view, neither condition applied here since both parties had already performed their obligations before any questions arose about enforceability and thus should be allowed to receive whatever benefits were promised by their original agreement