Spaids v. Cooley is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1885. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Ohio. The plaintiff, Spaids, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Cooley, in 1867. Cooley, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received full payment for the land. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Spaids, ruling that the sale was valid and that Cooley had received full payment for the land. The Court reasoned that Cooley had accepted the payment in full and had not made any objections to the sale at the time. Furthermore, the Court noted that Cooley had waited nearly twenty years before bringing the dispute to court, which was deemed to be an unreasonable amount of time. As a result, the Court held that the sale was valid and that Spaids was the rightful owner of the land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Spaids v. Cooley, arguing that the majority had misapplied precedent and failed to recognize a fundamental principle of law. He argued that when two parties have an agreement for one party to pay money or deliver goods, there is no need for consideration from both sides in order for it to be legally binding. In this case, he noted that Cooley had agreed to pay $1,000 without any consideration being given by Spaids; thus, the contract should have been enforced as valid under existing legal principles. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if some form of consideration was necessary here (which he did not believe), then it could easily be found in Cooley's promise not to sue on another claim against him which arose out of his business dealings with Spaids' father-in-law prior to their agreement about the $1,000 payment. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since there was sufficient evidence showing an enforceable contract between these two parties existed at common law and under state statutes governing contracts at the time this dispute arose - regardless of whether or not actual performance occurred - then judgment should have been entered in favor of Spaids rather than dismissing his complaint altogether as done by the majority opinion