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 piece of land. Goddard had agreed to pay Ordway a certain amount of money for the land, but Ordway had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Goddard then sued Ordway for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Goddard and Ordway 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 land. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Ordway had not delivered the deed to the land. The Court concluded that Goddard was entitled to recover the amount of money he had agreed to pay for the land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Goddard v. Ordway, a case concerning an action of ejectment brought by plaintiff against defendant to recover possession of certain lands located in Minnesota. Justice Field argued that the Court should have dismissed the writ of error and affirmed the judgment below because it was clear from both parties' pleadings that there had been no actual controversy between them regarding title to any land or other property rights at issue in this case. He further noted that even if there had been such a controversy, it would not be within federal jurisdiction since neither party claimed title under any act of Congress or treaty with Indian tribes; rather, they both based their claims on state law alone. Finally, he argued that even if there were some sort of federal question involved here, then this court could only review questions arising out of acts done prior to its decision and not those which occurred after it rendered its judgment as happened here when one party sought relief from another's subsequent actions taken after litigation began but before final determination was made by this court. Thus, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing for dismissal and affirmance due to lack of jurisdiction over matters raised herein as well as failure on parties’ behalfs to present an actual controversy for resolution