Hawley v. Upton 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, Hawley and Upton, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Upton had agreed to purchase the land from Hawley for a certain sum of money, but Hawley later refused to accept the payment and refused to transfer the deed to Upton. Upton then sued Hawley 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 other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Hawley had argued. The Court held that the contract was binding and that Upton was entitled to the deed to the land. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Hawley and Upton was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration and that it was not void for lack of consideration. The Court held that Upton was entitled to the deed to the land and that Hawley was liable for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hawley v. Upton, stating that he could not agree with the majority's conclusion that a contract between two parties was void because it violated an existing state law. He argued that although such contracts may be unenforceable under certain circumstances, they should still be considered valid and binding unless there is clear evidence of fraud or illegality on behalf of one party. In this case, Justice Field found no such evidence and thus concluded that the contract should remain intact despite its violation of state law. Furthermore, he noted that if courts were to invalidate all contracts which violate state laws without considering their merits first then many innocent people would suffer unjustly as a result.