Newell v. Norton and Ship was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1865. The plaintiff, Newell, had been hired as a seaman on board the defendant's vessel for an agreed-upon wage of $25 per month. After working for two months, he was discharged without being paid his wages or any other compensation from the defendants. He then sued them to recover what he believed were due wages under their contract agreement. The court held that when seamen are employed at sea they are entitled to receive payment according to their contracts regardless of whether they have completed their voyage or not; thus, Newell was owed his full salary despite having only worked two months before being discharged from service with no explanation given by the defendants. Furthermore, since there is no statute providing otherwise in this situation, common law principles must be applied which would entitle him to damages equal to twice his unpaid wages plus costs incurred during litigation proceedings against Norton and Ship if it could be proven that they acted wrongfully in discharging him without cause or notice prior thereto

In Newell v. Norton and Ship, 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 of justices held that the contract was valid because it had been agreed upon by both parties in good faith. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion and argued that contracts must always have some form of consideration in order for them to be enforceable under law. He reasoned that allowing such contracts would open up too much potential for fraud or abuse since there would no longer be any incentive for either party to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. Furthermore, he noted that courts should not allow people to make promises they cannot keep simply because they are willing to do so at the time of signing an agreement with another person or entity.