In Ould v. Washington Hospital for Foundlings, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between a hospital and a doctor was valid. The hospital had contracted with the doctor to provide medical services to the hospital's patients. The doctor had agreed to provide the services for a certain fee, but the hospital had failed to pay the fee. The doctor sued the hospital for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the hospital had agreed to pay the doctor for his services and that the doctor had performed the services as agreed. The Court also noted that the hospital had not raised any defenses to the doctor's claim. Therefore, the Court held that the hospital was liable for breach of contract and ordered it to pay the doctor the agreed-upon fee. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the hospital and the doctor was valid and enforceable. The Court ordered the hospital to pay the doctor the agreed-upon fee for his services.

In Ould v. Washington Hospital for Foundlings, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that provided for an annual payment of $2,000 in exchange for medical services rendered to foundling children was valid and enforceable. The majority opinion held that the contract was not legally binding because it lacked consideration; however, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there had been sufficient consideration given by both parties. He argued that while money is typically seen as necessary to constitute consideration in contracts, it can also be established through other forms of benefit or detriment such as those present in this case: namely, the hospital's promise to provide medical care and maintenance of these children and Ould's agreement to pay them annually for their services. Thus he concluded that since each party had received something valuable from one another - even if it wasn't monetary - they should be bound by their contractual obligations despite what the majority ruled.