Morey v. Lockwood 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 Morey and Lockwood, in which Morey agreed to pay Lockwood a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Lockwood argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing, while Morey argued that the contract was valid because it had been orally agreed upon. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Morey, finding that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the contract was binding because it had been agreed upon by both parties, and that the lack of a written agreement did not invalidate the contract. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in good faith and that the contract had been performed in accordance with its terms. The Court's decision in Morey v. Lockwood established that oral contracts are valid and enforceable, and that the lack of a written agreement does not invalidate a contract. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the validity of oral contracts in a variety of contexts.

In Morey v. Lockwood, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract was valid and enforceable because of its good faith nature, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that contracts must have some form of consideration in order for them to be legally binding; otherwise they are unenforceable under common law principles. Furthermore, he noted that even though the parties may have acted in good faith when entering into their agreement, there is still no legal basis for enforcing such an arrangement unless something of value has been exchanged by both sides as part of the bargain. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded that while courts should strive to uphold agreements whenever possible, they cannot do so at the expense of established legal principles like those governing consideration and contractual obligations