Goddard v. Ordway was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Goddard and Ordway, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a tract of land. Goddard had agreed to pay Ordway $2,000 for the land, and Ordway had agreed to convey the land to Goddard. However, Goddard failed to make the payment, and Ordway sued Goddard for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Goddard and Ordway was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was supported by consideration, as Goddard had agreed to pay $2,000 for the land, and Ordway had agreed to convey the land to Goddard. The Court also noted that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Goddard had agreed to pay the $2,000 and Ordway had agreed to convey the land. The Court also held that Ordway was entitled to damages for Goddard's breach of contract. The Court noted that Ordway had suffered a loss due to Goddard's failure to make the payment, and that Ordway was entitled to recover damages for that loss. The Court also noted that Ordway was entitled to recover the $2,000 that Goddard had agreed to pay for the land. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Goddard and Ordway was valid and enforceable, and that Ordway was entitled to damages for Goddard's breach of contract.

In the case of Goddard v. Ordway, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration for the agreement, it could not be enforced by either party. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while an agreement lacking consideration may not have been enforceable under common law principles at the time, equity should still allow enforcement if both parties acted in good faith and relied on each other’s promises to their detriment. He argued further that even though one party violated a state statute in making such an agreement, this did not necessarily mean they were acting fraudulently or maliciously; rather he suggested that equitable relief should still be available if both sides acted honestly and fairly towards each other throughout their dealings.