Garratt v. Seibert was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Garratt and Seibert, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Seibert had agreed to purchase the land from Garratt for a certain sum of money, but had failed to make the payment. Garratt then sued Seibert 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 other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Seibert had agreed to pay a certain sum of money for the land. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as both parties had agreed to certain obligations. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Garratt was entitled to recover the amount of money that Seibert had agreed to pay for the land. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Garratt and Seibert was valid and enforceable, and that Garratt was entitled to recover the amount of money that Seibert had agreed to pay for the land.

In the case of Garratt v. Seibert, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have found for the plaintiff on their claim of trespass to try title. He believed that since no deed was produced by either party showing an absolute transfer of ownership from one to another, it could not be said with certainty who had legal possession and thus rightful ownership over the land in question. Furthermore, he noted that there were several instances where courts had previously ruled in favor of plaintiffs when they presented evidence such as long-term occupancy or payment of taxes on disputed property even without producing a deed. In this particular case, Garratt had been occupying and paying taxes on the land for many years prior to Seibert's arrival; therefore Justice Field felt she deserved some form of compensation or recognition for her efforts regardless if she did not possess an official document proving her rights to it.