In the case of Nicolson Pavement Company v. Jenkins, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between the two parties was valid. The contract in question was for the construction of a pavement in the city of Washington, D.C. The contract was made between the Nicolson Pavement Company and Jenkins, who was acting as an agent for the city. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was made in good faith and that the parties had acted in a reasonable manner. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the city had agreed to pay for the pavement. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of capacity, as Jenkins had the authority to enter into the contract on behalf of the city. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of authority, as Jenkins had the authority to enter into the contract on behalf of the city. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the city had agreed to pay for the pavement. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the parties had acted in a reasonable manner.

In the case of Nicolson Pavement Company v. Jenkins, 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 held that such contracts were not enforceable, as they violated public policy by circumventing laws designed to protect citizens from fraud or other harm. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion on the grounds that there should be no interference with private contracts unless they are clearly against public policy or involve some form of fraud or deceit. He argued that if both parties agreed to enter into an agreement without consideration and in violation of a state law, then it should still be considered valid under common law principles since neither party would have any reason to believe their rights were being infringed upon at the time they entered into said agreement. Furthermore, he reasoned that allowing these types of agreements would promote economic stability by encouraging individuals to engage in commerce even when certain statutes may prohibit them from doing so directly.