Forsythe v. Kimball 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 Forsythe and Kimball, in which Forsythe agreed to pay Kimball a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Forsythe had paid the money, but Kimball refused to give Forsythe the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract 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 Forsythe had paid the money and Kimball had promised to give Forsythe the land. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as both parties had promised to do something in exchange for the other's promise. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Forsythe was entitled to the land as promised.

In Forsythe v. Kimball, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of state law. The majority opinion held that the contract was unenforceable because it lacked consideration and violated state law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that although the contract may have been made without consideration or in violation of state law, there were still valid reasons for enforcing it. He argued that if one party has already performed their part of the agreement then they should not be denied compensation simply because no money changed hands at its inception or due to an unrelated legal issue. Furthermore, he noted that contracts are often formed with mutual promises rather than monetary exchange and thus lack any form of tangible consideration; however these agreements can still be legally binding under certain circumstances such as where both parties have received some benefit from entering into said agreement or where public policy would support enforcement despite a lack of formal considerations being exchanged by either side.