Steinbach v. Stewart et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Steinbach, and the defendants, Stewart et al. Steinbach had agreed to purchase a tract of land from Stewart et al. for a certain sum of money. However, Steinbach failed to make the payments as agreed upon in the contract. Stewart et al. then sued Steinbach for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Steinbach and Stewart et al. was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Steinbach had agreed to pay a certain sum of money for the land. The Court also held that Steinbach was liable for breach of contract, as he had failed to make the payments as agreed upon in the contract. The Court found that Steinbach had not provided any valid excuse for his failure to make the payments, and thus he was liable for breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Steinbach and Stewart et al. was valid and enforceable, and that Steinbach was liable for breach of contract.

In Steinbach v. Stewart et al., 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, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that while consideration is generally necessary for an agreement to be legally binding, there are exceptions in which courts should recognize and enforce agreements even when no consideration has been given or promised by either party. In particular, he noted that where one of the parties has already performed their part of the agreement before any dispute arises over its validity, then equity demands that they should still receive whatever benefit was due under the contract regardless of whether or not there was any actual exchange of value between them and their counterparty at the time it was made.