In Thompson, Trustee, & Others v. Boisselier & Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between the plaintiff, Thompson, and the defendant, Boisselier, in which Boisselier agreed to pay Thompson a certain sum of money in exchange for certain property. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found 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 found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, meaning that the consideration given by each party was sufficient to support the contract. The Court found that the consideration given by Boisselier was sufficient to support the contract, and that Thompson had not been unjustly enriched by the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Thompson and Boisselier was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, was not void for lack of mutuality, and was not void for lack of consideration.

In Thompson, Trustee, & Others v. Boisselier & Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a foreign judgment should be enforced in the United States. The majority opinion held that it should not be enforced because it violated public policy and ran counter to U.S. laws regarding bankruptcy proceedings and creditors' rights; however, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the basis of comity between nations - i.e., respect for each other's laws and judicial decisions - as well as principles of international law which dictate that judgments rendered by one nation must be respected by another unless there is some clear violation of its own domestic law or public policy at stake. He argued that since no such violations were present in this case, then enforcement of the foreign judgment was warranted under these principles even if it did conflict with certain aspects of American bankruptcy law or creditor rights statutes; thus he concluded that denying recognition would amount to an unjustified interference with a legitimate decision made abroad which had been properly obtained according to all applicable legal requirements in force at the time within its jurisdiction