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 argued that the contract was invalid because Ivinso had not provided sufficient consideration for the sale. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, finding that the consideration provided by Ivinso was sufficient to make the contract binding. The Court also held that the consideration provided by Ivinso was sufficient to make the contract binding even though it was not of equal value to the land being sold. This case established that consideration does not have to be of equal value in order for a contract to be valid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Ivinson v. Hutton, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and logic. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of any subsequent changes in circumstances or laws which may have occurred since it was made. In this case, he noted that the contract had been entered into before Congress passed legislation prohibiting such contracts; thus, it should still be enforceable under existing law. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if one party were allowed to unilaterally change their obligations without consent from the other party then no contractual agreement could ever truly be relied upon by either side for security or certainty of performance. As such, he concluded that allowing one party to escape liability on a validly-formed contract would set an undesirable precedent and lead to further uncertainty in commercial transactions going forward.