McDonald v. Hovey & 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, McDonald and Hovey & Another, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of land. McDonald had agreed to pay Hovey & Another a certain amount of money for the land, but had failed to do so. Hovey & Another then sued McDonald 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 McDonald was sufficient to support the contract. The Court also held that McDonald was liable for breach of contract, as he had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract. The Court found that McDonald had failed to pay the agreed-upon amount for the land, and thus was liable for breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between McDonald and Hovey & Another was valid and enforceable, and that McDonald was liable for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in McDonald v. Hovey & Another, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of California law. He argued that under California law, when an individual purchases land with knowledge of any encumbrances or liens attached to it, they are responsible for those encumbrances and must pay them off before taking possession of the property. In this case, he argued that McDonald had purchased the land knowing about its existing mortgage lien and should have been held liable for paying it off before taking possession. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were some ambiguity regarding whether or not McDonald knew about the lien at time of purchase - which he did not believe was true - then she would still be bound by her agreement to assume all liabilities associated with purchasing said property as stated in their contract. Therefore Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that McDonald should have been held liable for paying off any existing mortgages prior to taking ownership of her new home.