In Spalding v. Manasse, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Spalding and Manasse, and it stated that Manasse would pay Spalding a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain piece of property. The Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was valid because it was made in good faith and with consideration. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Manasse had paid Spalding the agreed-upon amount of money. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, as both parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of capacity, as both parties had the legal capacity to enter into the contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not void for lack of legality, as the contract did not violate any laws or public policy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Spalding and Manasse was valid and enforceable.

In Spalding v. Manasse, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one of them against the other. The majority opinion held that it could not because there was no consideration for such an agreement and thus it lacked mutuality of obligation. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that partial performance should be sufficient consideration in certain cases where both parties have received some benefit from their arrangement and are still willing to continue with its terms despite any lack of formal consideration or mutuality of obligation. He argued further that if courts were allowed to consider partial performance as valid consideration then they would be able to enforce contracts which otherwise might fail due to technicalities but which nevertheless serve justice in a particular case.