Hemingway v. Stansell 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, Hemingway, and the defendant, Stansell, in which Stansell agreed to pay Hemingway a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Hemingway argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while Stansell argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was supported by consideration, which is an essential element of a valid contract. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by the testimony of witnesses who had heard the parties agree to the terms of the contract. Furthermore, the Court noted that the contract was not required to be in writing in order to be valid. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Hemingway and Stansell was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration and the testimony of witnesses, and that it was not required to be in writing in order to be valid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hemingway v. Stansell, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that under Georgia law, a contract of sale for land could not be enforced unless it was in writing and signed by both parties or their agents. In this case, there had been an oral agreement between the two parties to sell some land but no written document existed to prove it. The majority held that since one party had made improvements on the property after entering into this oral agreement with reasonable expectation of acquiring title to it, they were entitled to compensation from the other party who refused to honor their part of the bargain. Justice Field disagreed with this ruling as he believed such a result would encourage people to enter into verbal contracts without any assurance they will ever receive anything in return if either side decides not change course later on down line - something which is contrary public policy and against established legal principles regarding enforceability of contracts involving real estate transactions.