Greenleaf v. Goodrich was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Greenleaf and Goodrich, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Greenleaf had agreed to sell the land to Goodrich for a certain price, but Goodrich refused to pay the full amount. Greenleaf then sued Goodrich for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties 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 agreement. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, meaning that the consideration given by both parties was sufficient to make the contract valid. The Court also held that Goodrich was liable for breach of contract, as he had failed to pay the full amount agreed upon in the contract. The Court ordered Goodrich to pay the full amount of the contract to Greenleaf. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Greenleaf and Goodrich was valid and enforceable, and that Goodrich was liable for breach of contract for failing to pay the full amount agreed upon in the contract.

In the case of Greenleaf v. Goodrich, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while there may have been some technical violations of law or public policy involved in making the contract, these should not prevent its enforcement if both parties intended to enter into it and received something valuable as a result. He argued that enforcing such contracts would help protect people's expectations about their agreements with others and promote fairness for all who are party to them. Furthermore, he noted that refusing to enforce such contracts might lead individuals to avoid entering into any agreement at all out of fear that their promises will not be kept by courts if challenged later on.