In Hennequin & Another v. Clews & Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between the plaintiffs, Hennequin and another, and the defendants, Clews and another, to purchase a certain amount of stock in a company. The plaintiffs argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while the defendants argued that it was not. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party 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 mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. Finally, the Court found that the contract was not void for lack of capacity, meaning that both parties had the legal capacity to enter into the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Hennequin and Clews was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, was not void for lack of mutuality, and was not void for lack of capacity.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hennequin & Another v. Clews & Another, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misreading of the contract between parties. He argued that while it may be true that one party had not fulfilled their obligations under the contract, this did not necessarily mean they were liable for damages as there was no evidence to suggest any intentional breach or fraud by either side. Furthermore, he noted that even if one party had breached their contractual duties, it would still have been necessary to prove actual damage suffered by the other before awarding damages could be justified. In conclusion Justice Field maintained his position and disagreed with the majority ruling which found both sides liable for damages due to non-performance of contractual obligations without proof of actual harm caused by such breach.