Shillaber v. Robinson was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The plaintiff, Shillaber, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Robinson, to purchase a certain amount of lumber. Shillaber paid Robinson a portion of the purchase price, but Robinson refused to deliver the lumber. Shillaber then sued Robinson for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the performance of the other. The Court also noted that the contract was not illegal or against public policy. Therefore, the Court held that Shillaber was entitled to recover the purchase price of the lumber from Robinson.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Shillaber v. Robinson, arguing that the majority had failed to consider all of the facts and evidence presented by both parties. He argued that there was sufficient proof to show that a contract existed between plaintiff and defendant, which would have allowed for recovery on account of damages incurred due to breach of said contract. The majority opinion held that no such agreement existed because it lacked consideration; however Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion as he believed there was sufficient consideration present in this case. Furthermore, he noted how other courts had found similar agreements valid despite lacking formalities or considerations traditionally associated with contracts at common law. In his view, these cases should be taken into account when determining whether an agreement is legally binding or not - something which the majority did not do here - thus making their decision incorrect according to him.