Stitt v. Huidekoper 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, Stitt, and the defendant, Huidekoper, for the sale of a tract of land. Stitt had agreed to sell the land to Huidekoper for a certain sum of money, but Huidekoper had failed to pay the full amount. Stitt then sued Huidekoper for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Stitt and Huidekoper was valid and enforceable. The Court noted 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 noted that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Huidekoper had paid a portion of the purchase price. The Court also held that Stitt was entitled to damages for Huidekoper's breach of contract. The Court noted that Stitt had suffered a loss due to Huidekoper's failure to pay the full amount of the purchase price. The Court held that Stitt was entitled to recover the difference between the amount paid and the amount due under the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Stitt and Huidekoper was valid and enforceable, and that Stitt was entitled to damages for Huidekoper's breach of contract. The Court's decision established that contracts must be supported by consideration and that parties who breach contracts are liable for damages.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stitt v. Huidekoper, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding unless it can be proven to have been made under duress or fraud. In this case, there was no evidence of either of these conditions being present when the contract was formed; therefore, he believed it should remain valid and enforceable by law. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that if one party were allowed to break their contractual obligations without consequence then all contracts would become meaningless as people could simply choose not to abide by them whenever they wished with impunity. As such, he concluded that since there had been no proof presented which showed any wrongdoing on behalf of either party during the formation of their agreement then both must adhere to its terms until such time as those terms are fulfilled or legally modified through proper channels.