Stickney v. Stickney was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of a husband's right to control his wife's property. The case involved a dispute between a husband and wife over the ownership of certain property. The husband, Stickney, had purchased the property in his own name and had paid for it with his own funds. The wife, however, claimed that the property was hers, as it had been given to her by her father. The Supreme Court held that the husband had the right to control the property, as it had been purchased with his own funds. The Court noted that the wife had no legal right to the property, as it had been purchased by the husband. The Court also noted that the husband had the right to control the property, as it was his own property. The Court further noted that the wife had no right to the property, as it had been purchased by the husband. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the husband had the right to control the property, as it had been purchased with his own funds. The Court noted that the wife had no legal right to the property, as it had been purchased by the husband. The Court also noted that the husband had the right to control the property, as it was his own property.

In Stickney v. Stickney, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a husband's promise to pay his wife $500 per year for life constituted an enforceable contract. The majority of the court held that it did not because there was no consideration given by either party in exchange for the agreement and therefore it could not be enforced as a contract. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that although there may have been no consideration exchanged between the parties at the time of making their agreement, subsequent events had provided sufficient consideration to make it binding on both sides. He argued that since Mrs. Stickney had relied upon her husband's promise and acted accordingly by leaving her home and living separately from him with only his support as income, she should be allowed to recover what he promised her under their original agreement even though they were now divorced.