In the case of Oglesby v. Attrill, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Oglesby and Attrill, and it stated that Oglesby would pay Attrill a certain sum of money in exchange for Attrill's promise to pay Oglesby a certain sum of money at a later date. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Attrill had promised to pay Oglesby a certain sum of money at a later date. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as Oglesby had already paid Attrill the sum of money specified in the contract. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Oglesby was entitled to recover the sum of money specified in the contract from Attrill. The Court also held that Attrill was not entitled to recover any money from Oglesby, as Oglesby had already paid Attrill the sum of money specified in the contract.

In the case of Oglesby v. Attrill, the Supreme Court was asked to determine 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 the contract was not enforceable because it lacked consideration and violated state law, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that although there may have been no consideration for making the agreement, both parties were still bound by its terms due to their mutual promises and obligations under common law principles. Furthermore, he asserted that even if there had been some violation of state statutes regarding contracts with minors or married women (as alleged), such violations did not necessarily invalidate all aspects of an otherwise valid agreement; rather they should only render those portions unenforceable which are contrary to public policy or morals as determined by each particular jurisdiction's laws. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since neither party sought any advantage over one another through their arrangement nor acted fraudulently or maliciously towards each other then they should both be held accountable for fulfilling their respective duties under the contract at hand regardless of any technicalities related to lack of consideration or statutory infractions on either side