In Gilman v. Lockwood, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Gilman, and the defendant, Lockwood, in which Lockwood agreed to pay Gilman a certain sum of money in exchange for the use of Gilman's property. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in good faith and that both parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was not against public policy and that it was not unconscionable. The Court also held that the contract was binding on both parties and that Lockwood was obligated to pay Gilman the sum of money specified in the contract. The Court further held that Gilman was entitled to damages for breach of contract if Lockwood failed to pay the sum of money specified in the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Gilman and Lockwood was valid and enforceable and that Lockwood was obligated to pay Gilman the sum of money specified in the contract. Furthermore, the Court held that Gilman was entitled to damages for breach of contract if Lockwood failed to pay the sum of money specified in the contract.

In Gilman v. Lockwood, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and would undermine the authority of state legislatures to enact laws for their citizens' protection. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts are fundamental elements of commerce and should generally be upheld unless they violate some clear constitutional provision or express legislative prohibition. He argued further that if courts were allowed to invalidate contracts based on mere speculation about potential harm caused by them, then all commercial transactions would become uncertain and unreliable as no one could predict how any given court might rule on any particular case.