Empire v. Darlington was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Empire and Darlington, in which Empire agreed to pay Darlington a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. Darlington argued that the contract was invalid because Empire had not provided sufficient consideration for the sale. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, finding that Empire had provided sufficient consideration for the sale. The Court noted that Empire had agreed to pay Darlington a certain amount of money for the sale of the property, and that this was sufficient consideration to make the contract valid. The Court also noted that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Darlington had not provided any consideration for the sale. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Empire and Darlington was valid, finding that Empire had provided sufficient consideration for the sale. The Court noted that Darlington had not provided any consideration for the sale, and that the contract was not void for lack of consideration.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Empire v. Darlington, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether one party has received any benefit from it or not. The defendant had agreed to pay for certain services provided by the plaintiff and had failed to do so; thus, Justice Field believed that he should have been held liable for his contractual obligations even if he did not receive anything in return. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that there was no evidence presented at trial which showed any fraud or misrepresentation on either side regarding this agreement; therefore, it seemed unjust to deny recovery simply because one party did not gain anything from their bargain with another person. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded that since there were no grounds upon which liability could be denied under these circumstances then the defendant must be held responsible for his contractual obligations as per their original agreement.