In Tameling v. United States Freehold and Emigration Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The plaintiff, Tameling, had entered into a contract with the defendant, United States Freehold and Emigration Company, in which the company agreed to pay him a certain sum of money in exchange for his services. Tameling had performed the services as agreed, but the company refused to pay him the money. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also found that Tameling had performed his part of the contract, and that the company was therefore obligated to pay him the money as agreed. The Court held that the company was liable for breach of contract and ordered it to pay Tameling the money it had agreed to pay him.

In Tameling v. United States Freehold and Emigration Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it was made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract in question did not have sufficient consideration to make it enforceable under law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while there may not have been any monetary or other tangible form of consideration given for the agreement, both parties had received something of value through their mutual promises which should be taken into account when determining if a valid contract existed between them. He argued that courts should look beyond just money or goods exchanged in order to determine if an agreement is legally binding and instead consider all aspects of what each party has gained from entering into such an arrangement.