Ivinso v. Hutton 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 contract between Ivinso and Hutton, in which Ivinso agreed to pay Hutton a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of land. Hutton had already paid Ivinso a portion of the money, but Ivinso refused to accept the remaining payment. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Ivinso and Hutton was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned 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 Ivinso had already received a portion of the money from Hutton. The Court also held that Ivinso was not entitled to a refund of the money he had already received from Hutton. The Court reasoned that Ivinso had already accepted the money and had not returned it, and thus was not entitled to a refund. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Ivinso and Hutton was valid and enforceable, and that Ivinso was not entitled to a refund of the money he had already received from Hutton.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Ivinson v. Hutton, a case concerning whether or not an agreement between two parties was binding and enforceable under California law. Justice Field argued that the contract should be enforced because it had been accepted by both parties and they had acted upon it for several years without any objection from either party. He further noted that there were no facts to suggest that either party intended to revoke the contract or did anything which would indicate their intention of revoking it. Furthermore, he stated that if one of the parties wanted to avoid liability on this contract then they should have done so before acting upon its terms as opposed to waiting until after performance was complete. In conclusion, Justice Field argued that since both sides had agreed to and acted upon this agreement for many years without any objections being raised, then it should be held valid and enforceable under California law regardless of what other states may think about such contracts.