In Schulenberg et al. v. Harriman, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between Schulenberg and Harriman, and it stated that Schulenberg would pay Harriman a certain sum of money in exchange for the transfer of certain real estate. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Schulenberg was obligated to pay the sum of money as agreed. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was made in good faith and with consideration. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not illegal or immoral. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was binding on both parties, and that Schulenberg was obligated to pay the sum of money as agreed. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Schulenberg and Harriman was valid and enforceable, and that Schulenberg was obligated to pay the sum of money as agreed. The Court's decision established that contracts made in good faith and with consideration are valid and enforceable, and that parties are obligated to fulfill their contractual obligations.

In Schulenberg et al. v. Harriman, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced in court despite being made without consideration or legal formality. The majority opinion held that such contracts were unenforceable because they lacked consideration and did not meet the requirements of a valid contract under state law. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that while it is true that consideration is necessary for an enforceable contract, there are certain exceptions to this rule which should apply in this case due to the long-standing relationship between the parties involved and their mutual understanding of what had been agreed upon by both sides prior to entering into any formal agreement. He further argued that even if no actual monetary exchange occurred at the time of making said agreement, it does not necessarily mean that no value was exchanged as part of their arrangement; rather, he suggested looking at other factors such as past performance or promises made by one party which may have provided sufficient value for enforcing said agreement in court regardless of its lack of formalities or considerations typically associated with legally binding contracts.