Hewitt v. Phelps is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1881. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of New York. The plaintiff, Hewitt, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Phelps, and that he had paid for it in full. Phelps, however, argued that he had never sold the land to Hewitt and that he was still the rightful owner. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Hewitt, ruling that he had indeed purchased the land from Phelps and that he was the rightful owner. The Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable, and that Hewitt had fulfilled his obligations under the contract. The Court also noted that Phelps had failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that he had not sold the land to Hewitt. As a result, the Court ruled in favor of Hewitt and held that he was the rightful owner of the land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hewitt v. Phelps, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that a contract is not necessarily void simply because it involves an illegal act or purpose; rather, contracts are only voidable if they involve fraud or public policy considerations. In this case, he believed there were no such considerations present as the parties had entered into their agreement freely and with full knowledge of its terms. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that while Congress may have intended to prohibit certain types of contracts from being enforced by federal courts due to their illegality under state law, it did not intend for those same contracts to be rendered completely unenforceable in all circumstances - which is what would happen if the Court adopted the majority's position on this issue. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that since neither party had been misled nor taken advantage of during negotiations over their contract and since there was no evidence of any fraudulent intent on either side’s part – then enforcing said contract should be allowed according to established principles of equity and justice