Kaiser v. Stickney 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 the plaintiff, Kaiser, and the defendant, Stickney, for the sale of a piece of land. Kaiser had agreed to pay Stickney a certain amount of money for the land, but Stickney refused to accept the payment. Kaiser then sued Stickney for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties 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 land. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, meaning that the consideration given by both parties was sufficient to make the contract valid. The Court also held that Stickney was liable for breach of contract, as he had refused to accept the payment offered by Kaiser. The Court found that Stickney had acted in bad faith by refusing to accept the payment, and that he was therefore liable for damages. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Kaiser and Stickney was valid and enforceable, and that Stickney was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Stickney had acted in bad faith by refusing to accept the payment offered by Kaiser, and that he was therefore liable for damages.

In the case of Kaiser v. Stickney, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced when one party had not performed their obligations as outlined in the agreement. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration for either side's performance, and because both parties were aware of this fact at the time they entered into the agreement, it could not be enforced. Justice Field dissented from this decision on grounds that although there may have been no consideration given by either party for each other’s performance under the contract, it did not necessarily mean that such an arrangement could never be legally binding. He argued that if both sides intended to enter into a valid contractual relationship then they should still be bound by its terms regardless of any lack of mutual consideration or benefit derived from it. Furthermore, he noted how enforcing contracts without considerations is commonplace in many states and thus should also apply here as well.