Orvis v. Powell was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Orvis and Powell, over a contract for the sale of a horse. Orvis had agreed to purchase the horse from Powell for $200, but Powell refused to deliver the horse after Orvis had paid the agreed-upon price. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Orvis and Powell was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the horse. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. The Court also held that Powell was liable for breach of contract for failing to deliver the horse to Orvis. The Court found that Powell had accepted the $200 payment from Orvis and had failed to fulfill his part of the agreement. The Court ordered Powell to deliver the horse to Orvis or to return the $200 payment.

In the case of Orvis v. Powell, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding 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, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that while there may have been no consideration for the agreement, it should still be enforced because both parties had agreed to its terms and intended to abide by them. Furthermore, he noted that if one party was allowed to break their promise simply because they did not receive something in return then all agreements would become unenforceable as people would never feel secure enough to enter into any kind of binding arrangement with another person or entity. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his belief that even though there may have been no consideration given for an agreement between two parties who willingly entered into it should still be upheld and respected by courts of law regardless if it violated a state statute or not.