The American Wood Paper Company v. Jacob D. Heft et al was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1868. The case involved a dispute between the American Wood Paper Company and Jacob D. Heft and his associates over a contract for the sale of paper. The American Wood Paper Company had contracted with Heft and his associates to purchase paper from them, but Heft and his associates refused to deliver the paper. The American Wood Paper Company then sued Heft and his associates for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Heft and his associates were liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable, and that Heft and his associates had breached the contract by refusing to deliver the paper. The Court also held that the American Wood Paper Company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court awarded the American Wood Paper Company the amount of the contract, plus interest and costs. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Heft and his associates were liable for breach of contract and awarded the American Wood Paper Company damages for the breach. The Court's decision established that contracts are binding and enforceable, and that parties who breach contracts are liable for damages.

In the case of The American Wood Paper Company v. Jacob D. Heft et al, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute prohibiting such contracts. The majority opinion held that since no consideration had been given for the contract, it was unenforceable under both common law and state statutes. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on grounds that he believed there were sufficient facts to support enforcement of the agreement despite its lack of consideration or statutory prohibition against it. Specifically, Field argued that because one party had already performed their obligations under the contract prior to any knowledge by either party about its invalidity due to lack of consideration or statutory prohibitions, equity should dictate enforcing those obligations as they would have otherwise been enforceable if not for these issues arising after performance began but before completion occurred.