Hauenstein v. Lynham was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when the consideration for the contract was illegal. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Hauenstein, and the defendant, Lynham, in which Hauenstein agreed to pay Lynham a certain sum of money in exchange for Lynham's promise to pay off a debt owed by Hauenstein to a third party. The debt was illegal, as it was for a gambling debt. The Supreme Court held that the contract was unenforceable, as the consideration for the contract was illegal. The Court reasoned that the consideration for the contract was illegal, and thus the contract was void and unenforceable. The Court also noted that the parties could not rely on the doctrine of estoppel to enforce the contract, as the consideration for the contract was illegal. The Court concluded that the contract was unenforceable, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the money he had paid to the defendant.

In Hauenstein v. Lynham, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties had been breached. The majority opinion found that there had not been a breach of contract and thus dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that the facts presented in court showed that there had indeed been a breach of contract by one party and therefore damages should be awarded for such an infringement. He argued that it was clear from both parties' testimony as well as other evidence presented during trial proceedings that one side failed to fulfill their contractual obligations and thus caused harm to the other party involved in this dispute. Furthermore, he noted how state law supported his position on this matter since it provided remedies for those who have suffered losses due to another's failure or refusal to perform under an agreement they entered into with them. In conclusion, Justice Field believed justice would only be served if damages were awarded against the breaching party in order for them to make whole any losses incurred by their actions or lack thereof