Elwood v. Flannigan 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 Elwood and Flannigan, in which Elwood agreed to pay Flannigan a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Flannigan argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing, while Elwood argued that the contract was valid because it had been partially performed. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Elwood, ruling that the contract was valid. The Court held that a contract does not need to be in writing in order to be valid, and that partial performance of a contract can be sufficient to establish its validity. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in good faith and that the contract had been partially performed, which was sufficient to establish its validity. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elwood, finding that the contract between Elwood and Flannigan was valid. The Court held that a contract does not need to be in writing in order to be valid, and that partial performance of a contract can be sufficient to establish its validity.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Elwood v. Flannigan, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, and it cannot be set aside by one party without consent from the other. In this case, he found that there was no evidence to suggest that either party had agreed to rescind or modify their original agreement; therefore, they were still bound by its terms. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if one party could unilaterally change an agreement after it has been made without any consideration from the other side then contracts would become meaningless as people would not feel secure entering into agreements with each other knowing they can easily be changed at any time. Therefore, he concluded that since neither party had consented to changing their initial contract then it must remain valid and enforceable under law