Hatch v. Coddington 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, Hatch and Coddington, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. The contract stated that Hatch would pay Coddington $1,000 for the land, and that Coddington would then transfer the deed to Hatch. However, Coddington refused to transfer the deed, claiming that the contract was invalid. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Hatch, finding that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the contract was binding and that Coddington was obligated to transfer the deed to Hatch. The Court also held that the contract was not invalidated by the fact that it was not in writing, as the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and had acted in reliance on it. This ruling established that oral contracts can be valid and enforceable in certain circumstances.

In Hatch v. Coddington, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust created by a husband and wife constituted an equitable mortgage or an absolute conveyance. The majority opinion held that it was an absolute conveyance, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that the language used in the deed indicated that it should be considered as creating only an equitable mortgage, which would allow for redemption if certain conditions were met. In addition, he noted that there had been no consideration given for the transfer of title and thus concluded that under these circumstances it could not be considered anything other than a security interest rather than outright ownership. Furthermore, he argued against applying strict rules of construction when interpreting deeds such as this one because they are often ambiguous due to their technical nature and require more flexibility in interpretation so as to avoid injustice where possible.