Jones v. Van Doren 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 dispute between two parties, Jones and Van Doren, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Jones had agreed to purchase the land from Van Doren for a certain sum of money, but Van Doren later refused to accept the payment and refused to transfer the deed to Jones. Jones then sued Van Doren for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Jones and Van Doren was valid and enforceable. The Court found 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 Van Doren had received something of value in exchange for his promise to transfer the deed. The Court also held that Jones was entitled to damages for Van Doren's breach of contract. The Court found that Jones had suffered a loss due to Van Doren's refusal to accept payment and transfer the deed, and that Jones was entitled to be compensated for this loss. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Jones and Van Doren was valid and enforceable, and that Jones was entitled to damages for Van Doren's breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jones v. Van Doren, arguing that the court should not have reversed the decision of a lower court. He argued that there was no error committed by the lower court and thus it should be left to stand as is. The case involved an action for damages brought against two individuals who had wrongfully taken possession of certain real estate belonging to another individual, John H. Jones. Justice Field believed that since there was sufficient evidence presented at trial which showed that both defendants were aware they did not own or possess any right to take possession of said property, then they could be held liable for their actions and therefore judgment should have been entered in favor of Jones on his claim for damages from them both. Furthermore, he noted how this case differed from other cases where courts are more likely to reverse decisions due to errors made by a lower court; however here such errors were absent and thus reversal would be inappropriate under these circumstances according to Justice Field's dissent