Gibbs & Sterrett Manufacturing Company v. Brucker was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable even though it was not in writing. The case involved a dispute between Gibbs & Sterrett Manufacturing Company and Brucker, a former employee of the company. Brucker had been hired by the company to work as a machinist and had agreed to a verbal contract that he would be paid a certain amount of money for his services. When the company refused to pay him the agreed-upon amount, Brucker sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the verbal contract between the parties was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and that the contract was not illegal or against public policy. The Court also noted that the contract was not required to be in writing in order to be enforceable. The Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable and that Brucker was entitled to the agreed-upon amount of money.

In Gibbs & Sterrett Manufacturing Company v. Brucker, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one of the parties against the other. The majority opinion held that it could not, as there were no mutual promises to bind both sides and thus nothing to enforce. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while there may have been no mutual promises in the original agreement itself, performance of part of it constituted an implied promise on behalf of both parties which should be legally binding. He argued further that if such contracts are allowed to go unenforced then people will become discouraged from entering into them at all due to lack of trustworthiness and reliability among contracting partners.