Lincoln v. Claflin was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1868. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a parcel of land in the state of New York. The plaintiff, Lincoln, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Claflin, to purchase the land for a certain sum of money. Claflin had failed to fulfill his part of the contract, and Lincoln sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Claflin was liable for damages for breach of contract. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of consideration, as the consideration was sufficient to support the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity, as both parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of mutuality of obligation, as both parties had a mutual obligation to perform the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of mutuality of remedy, as both parties had a mutual right to seek damages for breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Lincoln and Claflin was valid and enforceable, and that Claflin was liable for damages for breach of contract.

In Lincoln v. Claflin, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made under duress. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it was entered into under duress and thus violated public policy. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while contracts made under duress are generally unenforceable in equity courts, they may still be enforceable at law if there is no fraud or mistake involved. He argued that since both parties were competent adults who understood what they were signing and there was no evidence of fraud or mistake present in this case, then the contract should have been upheld as valid by the court despite being entered into under duress.