Garretton v. Clark & Another 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 the plaintiff, Garretson, and the defendants, Clark & Another, for the sale of a tract of land. The contract stated that the defendants would pay the plaintiff $2,000 for the land, and that the plaintiff would pay the defendants $1,000 in cash and the remaining $1,000 in notes. The defendants paid the plaintiff the $1,000 in cash, but refused to pay the remaining $1,000 in notes. The plaintiff then sued the defendants for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the defendants had paid the plaintiff the $1,000 in cash. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as the plaintiff had agreed to pay the defendants the $1,000 in notes. The Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the remaining $1,000 in notes from the defendants.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Garretson v. Clark & Another, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding upon them both, regardless of any subsequent events or changes to their circumstances. In this case, he believed that the original agreement between Garretson and Clark should have been enforced as written because it had not been modified by either party since its formation. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there had been some change in circumstances since then which made performance of the contract impossible for one party or another, they still would have remained liable for damages resulting from breach of said contract according to established legal principles at the time. As such, he concluded that Garretson was entitled to recover damages from Clark due to his failure to perform under their agreement despite any intervening events which may have occurred afterwards.