Fisk v. Arthur 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 William Fisk and William Arthur, in which Fisk agreed to pay Arthur a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. Arthur had already paid Fisk a portion of the money, but Fisk refused to accept the remaining payment. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Fisk and Arthur 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 consideration, as Fisk had already received a portion of the money from Arthur. The Court also held that Fisk was not entitled to a refund of the money he had already received from Arthur. The Court found that Fisk had accepted the money in exchange for the property, and that he was not entitled to a refund of the money he had already received. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Fisk and Arthur was valid and enforceable, and that Fisk was not entitled to a refund of the money he had already received from Arthur.

In Fisk v. Arthur, 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 a state law prohibiting such contracts. The majority opinion held that the contract was valid despite being made without consideration and in violation of state law because it did not violate public policy or any other federal laws. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that since the contract violated both common law principles as well as state statutes, it should be considered void and unenforceable under all circumstances. He argued further that allowing such contracts to stand would open up avenues for fraudsters to take advantage of unsuspecting individuals by making agreements which were illegal but still enforceable due to lack of consideration or other legal violations. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that upholding these types of contracts would undermine public confidence in our judicial system's ability to protect citizens from fraudulent activity and thus should not be allowed under any circumstance