Lanfear v. Hunley 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 William Lanfear and William Hunley, in which Lanfear agreed to pay Hunley a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain piece of land. The contract was signed by both parties, but the deed was never delivered to Lanfear. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, despite the fact that the deed was never delivered. The Court reasoned that the contract was binding because it was signed by both parties and the consideration was paid. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in good faith and that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or mistake. The Court's decision in Lanfear v. Hunley established that a contract is valid and enforceable even if the deed is not delivered, as long as the parties acted in good faith and the consideration was paid. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it is still an important precedent in contract law today.

In Lanfear v. Hunley, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it lacked consideration and violated public policy as expressed by the state statute. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while contracts lacking consideration are generally unenforceable, there is an exception to this rule for cases where one party has already performed their obligations under the agreement before being informed of its invalidity due to lack of consideration or violation of law. In such cases, he argued that equity demands enforcement since one party has already acted upon their promise in good faith and would suffer harm if denied relief. He further noted that allowing such contracts to stand would promote justice rather than undermine public policy since both parties have relied on each other's promises in making decisions about how best to use their resources