Kleinschmidt & Others v. McAndrews & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Kleinschmidt and McAndrews, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Kleinschmidt had agreed to pay McAndrews a certain amount of money for the land, but McAndrews had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Kleinschmidt then sued McAndrews 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 other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Kleinschmidt had paid the agreed-upon amount of money for the land. The Court also held that McAndrews was liable for breach of contract, as he had failed to deliver the deed to the land. The Court found that Kleinschmidt was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and ordered McAndrews to pay the agreed-upon amount of money for the land. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Kleinschmidt and McAndrews was valid and enforceable, and that McAndrews was liable for breach of contract. The Court ordered McAndrews to pay the agreed-upon amount of money for the land, and awarded damages to Kleinschmidt for the breach of contract.

In the case of Kleinschmidt & Others v. McAndrews & Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties should be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that since there was no consideration given for the agreement, it could not be enforced by either party. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that although there may have been no legal consideration exchanged for the agreement, both parties were still bound to its terms due to their mutual promises and obligations under common law principles. He argued that if one party failed to fulfill their end of the bargain then they would be liable for damages as per established precedent in similar cases involving contracts formed without any form of legal consideration being present at all.