In the case of Jonathan C. Sturtevant v. John M. Herndon, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was an agreement between Sturtevant and Herndon, in which Herndon agreed to pay Sturtevant a certain sum of money in exchange for the use of Sturtevant's land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, as it was made in good faith and with consideration. The Court also held that the contract was binding on both parties, and that Herndon was obligated to pay the agreed-upon sum of money to Sturtevant. The Court further held that Herndon was not entitled to any damages for breach of contract, as he had not suffered any actual loss. The Court's decision was based on the principle that contracts should be enforced according to their terms, and that parties should not be allowed to avoid their obligations by claiming that the contract was invalid.

In the case of Jonathan C. Sturtevant v. John M. Herndon, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of public policy. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy, while Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that there was no evidence presented to show that enforcing such contracts would violate any established rule or principle of law or morality. He argued further that if one party had received some benefit from entering into an agreement with another party, then it should be allowed to stand regardless of its lack of consideration or potential for violating public policy since both parties had agreed upon its terms at their own free will and discretion.