Smith v. Orton was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1865. The dispute arose when Smith, an Illinois resident, sued Orton for breach of contract and fraud related to a land sale transaction between them. Smith alleged that he had purchased two parcels of land from Orton but that the deed given to him did not include all of the property described in their agreement. He further claimed that he paid more than what was due under their contract because Orton had misled him about certain details regarding the title and boundaries of one parcel. The Supreme Court held that since there were no material facts at issue, summary judgment should be entered in favor of Smith as his allegations were sufficient enough to establish his right to relief on both counts against Orton without any need for trial proceedings or additional evidence being presented by either party. This ruling affirmed lower court decisions which found in favor of Smith and awarded damages accordingly based on his claims against Orton's fraudulent misrepresentations concerning the title and boundaries associated with one parcel sold during their transaction together

In Smith v. Orton, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed should be enforced. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it lacked consideration and mutuality of obligation. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that partial performance of a contract can constitute sufficient consideration for its enforcement. He argued that when one party has already begun performing their obligations under an agreement, they have given up something in exchange for what is expected from them by the other party; thus creating a valid consideration which makes enforcing such contracts reasonable and justifiable in law. Furthermore, he noted that if courts were to refuse to enforce contracts based solely on lack of mutuality or lack of full performance then many innocent individuals would suffer unjustly due to no fault of their own as they may have already fulfilled some portion of their contractual duties before learning about any potential defects with respect to those agreements