Sanger v. Nightingale 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, Sanger and Nightingale, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Sanger had agreed to purchase the land from Nightingale for a certain sum of money, but Nightingale refused to accept the payment and instead demanded a higher price. 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, as the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and had exchanged something of value. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court found that both parties had acted in good faith and that there was no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Sanger and Nightingale was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration and that there was no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of consideration.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Sanger v. Nightingale, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to confusion among lower courts. He argued that a contract for services should not be treated differently from other contracts, as it is still an agreement between two parties with mutual obligations and rights. Furthermore, he noted that if a party fails to perform their duties under such an agreement they can be held liable for damages regardless of whether or not there was any consideration given by either side. Finally, Justice Field stated that while the court had previously ruled on similar cases involving service contracts without considering consideration as part of its analysis, this case should have been decided in accordance with those prior decisions rather than creating new law which could potentially cause confusion among lower courts when deciding future cases.