In Greenwood v. Freight Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between a freight company and a shipper was valid. The freight company had agreed to transport the shipper's goods from one place to another, but the shipper had failed to pay the agreed-upon price. The freight company sued the shipper for the unpaid amount. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the shipper had accepted the terms of the contract and had received the benefit of the freight company's services. Therefore, the shipper was obligated to pay the agreed-upon price. The Court also held that the freight company was entitled to recover the unpaid amount, plus interest. The Court's decision in Greenwood v. Freight Company established that a contract is binding and enforceable even if one party fails to pay the agreed-upon price. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving contracts and payment obligations.

In Greenwood v. Freight Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract in question was unenforceable because there had been no consideration given by either party to support it. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that while contracts must generally include some form of consideration to be enforceable, this requirement should not apply if both parties are aware of and agree upon their respective obligations under the agreement. He further noted that even though one party may have received an advantage from entering into such an arrangement, as long as they were aware of what they were agreeing to at the time then any benefit or detriment resulting from its performance should not affect its validity or enforceability. Ultimately he concluded that since both parties knew exactly what they were getting out of the deal and agreed to abide by its terms then it should still be considered valid despite lacking formal considerations on either side