In the case of New Jersey Zinc Company v. Trotter, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a contract between the two parties was valid. The contract in question was for the sale of a zinc mine in New Jersey. The plaintiff, New Jersey Zinc Company, argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while the defendant, Trotter, argued that the contract was invalid due to a lack of consideration. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the consideration for the contract was the mutual promises of the parties, and that the consideration was sufficient to make the contract valid. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the consideration was sufficient to make the contract valid. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between New Jersey Zinc Company and Trotter was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the consideration for the contract was sufficient to make the contract valid, and that the contract was not void for lack of consideration.

In the case of New Jersey Zinc Company v. Trotter, 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 found that the contract was unenforceable due to its lack of consideration and violation of law. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the basis that there were sufficient facts present to support enforcement despite these issues. He argued that while contracts lacking consideration are generally void, they can still be enforced if certain conditions are met such as where one party has already performed their obligations under said agreement or if both parties have acted upon it for some time before either attempts to repudiate it. In this case, he believed those conditions were satisfied since both parties had acted upon the agreement for several years prior to any attempt at rescission by either side and thus should not be rendered invalid simply because no formal consideration existed at its inception or because it violated a state statute which did not apply retroactively anyway given its enactment after formation of said contract.