This case was heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1883. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Hunt and Oliver, over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. Hunt and Oliver had entered into a contract for the sale of the steamboat, but Oliver had failed to make the payments as agreed. Hunt then brought a suit against Oliver for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Hunt was entitled to recover damages from Oliver for breach of contract. The Court found that Oliver had failed to make the payments as agreed and that Hunt had suffered damages as a result. The Court also held that Hunt was entitled to recover the full amount of the contract price, plus interest, from Oliver. The Court also held that Hunt was entitled to recover attorney's fees from Oliver. The Court found that Oliver had acted in bad faith by failing to make the payments as agreed and that Hunt had incurred attorney's fees in bringing the suit against Oliver. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Hunt was entitled to recover damages from Oliver for breach of contract, including the full amount of the contract price, plus interest, and attorney's fees.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hunt and Another, Appellant v. Oliver. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He noted that under existing laws, a contract could be enforced even if it had been made without consideration or with an illegal one; however, he disagreed with the majority's conclusion that this particular contract was void due to its lack of consideration. Justice Field further contended that there were other reasons why the contract should have been upheld: firstly, because it had been executed by both parties in good faith; secondly, because it did not violate any public policy; thirdly, because no fraud or mistake had occurred during its formation; fourthly, because all of its terms were clear and unambiguous; fifthly, because performance on either side would benefit both parties equally. Ultimately Justice Field concluded that since none of these factors weighed against upholding the agreement between Hunt and Oliver then their contractual obligations should remain valid despite being formed without consideration.