Feibelman v. Packard and Others 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 two parties, Feibelman and Packard, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Feibelman had agreed to purchase the land from Packard, but Packard refused to transfer the deed to Feibelman. Feibelman then sued Packard for breach of contract. 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 land. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, meaning that the consideration given by both parties was sufficient to make the contract valid. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, meaning that both parties had agreed to perform certain obligations in exchange for the land. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Packard was liable for breach of contract. The Court ordered Packard to transfer the deed to Feibelman.

In the case of Feibelman v. Packard and Others, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patentee could sue for infringement in equity when there had been no prior suit at law. The majority opinion held that such suits were not allowed under existing laws, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that it would be unjust to deny a patentee their right to bring an action in equity if they had already suffered damages due to someone infringing upon their rights as granted by the Patent Office. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had previously provided for such actions in other cases and thus should do so here as well; otherwise, those who infringed on patents would have little incentive not to continue doing so since they faced no legal consequences until after any damage was done. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing patentees to seek relief through equitable proceedings was necessary both for justice's sake and also because it served as a deterrent against future infringement of patents issued by the government.