In Purcell v. Miner, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable even though it had been made without consideration. The case involved an agreement between William Purcell and John Miner in which Purcell agreed to pay $1,000 for certain real estate owned by Miner. Although there was no consideration given by either party at the time of making the agreement, both parties intended to be bound by its terms when they entered into it. The court found that this intention created a binding obligation on both sides despite lack of consideration and thus upheld their agreement as legally enforceable.

In Purcell v. Miner, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against citizens of the same other state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that while states may generally lack authority to exercise judicial power outside their own borders, this particular case involved parties from only one other state and thus should be allowed to proceed in the original court where it was filed. He reasoned that since all parties were from out-of-state there would be no interference with local interests or laws; therefore allowing for interstate commerce without disruption or confusion as well as providing access to justice for those who are unable to travel long distances due to financial constraints or health reasons. Furthermore, he noted that if each party is required to bring suit in their home states then they will likely incur additional costs which could lead them into debt just so they can seek legal redress – something which goes against basic principles of fairness and equity under law.