New York Life Insurance Company v. Hendren was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a life insurance policy was validly issued. The case involved a dispute between the New York Life Insurance Company and the beneficiary of a policy, Mrs. Hendren. The insurance company argued that the policy was not validly issued because the insured had not provided the company with the necessary information to issue the policy. The Supreme Court held that the policy was validly issued, and that the insured had provided the company with sufficient information to issue the policy. The Court also held that the insurance company was not entitled to rescind the policy, as it had failed to provide the insured with the necessary information to issue the policy. The Court further held that the insurance company was liable for the full amount of the policy, as the insured had provided the company with the necessary information to issue the policy. The Court's decision established that an insurance company must provide the insured with the necessary information to issue a policy, and that the insured must provide the company with the necessary information to issue the policy.

In New York Life Insurance Company v. Hendren, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between an insurance company and its policyholder could be enforced in court. The majority of the Court held that it could not, as there had been no consideration given by either party to support the agreement. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion and argued that consideration should not be necessary for such contracts because they are based on mutual trust and confidence between two parties who have already entered into a relationship prior to making any promises or agreements. He further argued that if courts were allowed to enforce these types of contracts without requiring consideration then it would encourage people to enter into more meaningful relationships with each other rather than relying solely on legal documents which may lack any real substance or meaning beyond their written words. Ultimately, Justice Field's dissent was unsuccessful but his arguments still remain relevant today when considering how best to protect individuals' rights within contractual arrangements where one party has significantly more power than another.