Pirie & Others v. Tvedt & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Pirie and Tvedt, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Pirie had agreed to pay Tvedt a certain amount of money for the land, but Tvedt refused to accept the payment. Pirie then sued Tvedt for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties 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 land. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, meaning that the consideration given by both parties was sufficient to make the contract valid. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, meaning that both parties had agreed to perform certain obligations under the contract. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Pirie was entitled to recover damages from Tvedt for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in PIRIE & OTHERS v. TVEDT & ANOTHER, arguing that the majority had erred in their decision to uphold a lower court ruling which held that an individual who was not a party to a contract could not sue for damages resulting from its breach. He argued that this interpretation of contract law would lead to injustice and hardship, as it would prevent individuals who were affected by contracts between other parties from seeking redress when those contracts were breached. Justice Field further noted that such an interpretation of contract law was inconsistent with prior decisions made by both state and federal courts, which allowed non-parties to bring suit for damages resulting from breaches of contract. As such, he concluded that the majority's decision should be reversed and remanded back to the lower court so they could consider all relevant evidence before making their final determination on whether or not non-parties can seek relief for contractual breaches.