This case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamship called the Great Western. The plaintiffs, Thommessen & Another, were the owners of the steamship and had entered into a contract with the defendant, Whitwill, for the sale of the vessel. The contract stated that the vessel was to be delivered to Whitwill in a certain condition and that Whitwill was to pay the agreed-upon price for the vessel. However, Whitwill failed to pay the agreed-upon price and Thommessen & Another sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable and that Whitwill was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Whitwill had failed to pay the agreed-upon price and that Thommessen & Another were entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of Whitwill. The Court concluded that Whitwill was liable for the breach of contract and ordered him to pay the agreed-upon price for the vessel.

In The Great Western; Thommessen & Another v. Whitwill, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. In this case, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for the sale of certain goods which violated a New York statute that prohibited such contracts from being made without first obtaining consent from three-fourths of all creditors involved. The majority opinion held that since there was no dispute as to the facts or validity of the agreement itself, it must be enforced despite its illegality under state law. However, Justice Field dissented on behalf of himself and four other justices arguing that while courts have traditionally upheld agreements even if they are illegal under state laws so long as they do not violate public policy or morals, this particular agreement did both by attempting to defraud creditors out their rightful claims against debtors’ estates. Therefore he argued that enforcing such an agreement would set a dangerous precedent allowing people to enter into contracts with impunity regardless of any applicable laws meant to protect others’ interests and rights