Hapgood v. Hewitt was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Hapgood, and the defendant, Hewitt, in which Hewitt agreed to provide Hapgood with a certain amount of coal. Hapgood paid Hewitt in advance for the coal, but Hewitt failed to deliver the coal as promised. Hapgood then sued Hewitt 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 performance of the other. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. The Court also held that Hewitt was liable for breach of contract, as he had failed to deliver the coal as promised. The Court ordered Hewitt to pay damages to Hapgood for the breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Hapgood and Hewitt was valid and enforceable, and that Hewitt was liable for breach of contract. The Court ordered Hewitt to pay damages to Hapgood for the breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hapgood v. Hewitt, a case concerning whether or not an individual could be held liable for another's debt under the law of New York. Justice Field argued that while it was true that New York did not recognize any such liability, this should have been irrelevant to the court’s decision because there were other legal grounds on which to base their ruling. He noted that even if no such liability existed under state law, it would still be possible for a contract between two parties to create such an obligation and thus render one party liable for another’s debt. Furthermore, he argued that since both parties had agreed upon certain terms in their agreement with each other and those terms had been violated by one party (Hewitt), then they should have been enforced by the court regardless of what state laws said about similar situations. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that although New York may not recognize any form of contractual liability between individuals regarding debts owed by others, this particular situation warranted enforcement due to its unique circumstances and therefore Hewitt should have been held accountable for his actions as per his agreement with Hapgood.