In the case of Slater v. Maxwell, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The plaintiff, Slater, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Maxwell, to purchase a tract of land. The contract stated that Slater would pay Maxwell $1,000 for the land, and that Maxwell would convey the land to Slater upon payment. Slater paid the $1,000, but Maxwell refused to convey the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, as Slater had paid the $1,000, and that the contract was not against public policy. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the consideration had been provided by Slater. The Court concluded that Slater was entitled to specific performance of the contract, and ordered Maxwell to convey the land to Slater. The Court also ordered Maxwell to pay Slater damages for the delay in conveying the land. This case established the principle that contracts are enforceable and that parties must fulfill their contractual obligations.

In the case of Slater v. Maxwell, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration and thus did not constitute valid agreements under state law. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that while consideration is an essential element of any legally binding agreement, there are certain circumstances where its absence should not prevent enforcement of a contract. He reasoned that when one party has already performed their part of the bargain or provided some benefit to another party then this should be sufficient for enforcing an otherwise valid agreement even if no additional consideration was given by either side at the time it was made.