In Gordon v. Giltfoil, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between the plaintiff, Gordon, and the defendant, Giltfoil, to purchase a tract of land. Gordon had agreed to pay Giltfoil $2,000 for the land, and Giltfoil had agreed to convey the land to Gordon. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was in writing and that both parties had signed it. Furthermore, the Court found that the consideration for the contract was sufficient, as Gordon had agreed to pay Giltfoil $2,000 for the land. The Court also noted that the contract was not illegal or against public policy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Gordon and Giltfoil was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was in writing, that both parties had signed it, that the consideration was sufficient, and that the contract was not illegal or against public policy.

In the case of Gordon v. Gilfoil, the Supreme Court was asked to decide 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 such contracts were not enforceable and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that there is no general rule prohibiting enforcement of contracts which are illegal under state laws. He argued that while some states may have statutes forbidding certain types of agreements, these should only apply if they are specifically mentioned in those laws or if their illegality is clear beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, he noted that even where a contract violates public policy as expressed by statute or common law principles, courts can still choose to recognize its validity depending on individual circumstances and facts presented before them. Thus Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that since there was no evidence here indicating any illegality associated with this particular agreement between Gordon and Gilfoil, it should be enforced according to its terms regardless of any potential violations against state law at issue in this case