Treat v. Jemison was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff, Treat, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Jemison, to purchase a tract of land in the state of Alabama. Treat had paid Jemison a portion of the purchase price, but Jemison refused to convey the land to Treat. Treat then brought suit against Jemison, seeking specific performance of the contract. The Supreme Court held that Treat was entitled to specific performance of the contract. The Court found that Treat had fully performed his obligations under the contract, and that Jemison had breached the contract by refusing to convey the land. The Court also held that Treat was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and that the damages should be calculated based on the difference between the value of the land at the time of the breach and the purchase price agreed to in the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Treat was entitled to specific performance of the contract and damages for the breach of contract. The Court found that Treat had fully performed his obligations under the contract, and that Jemison had breached the contract by refusing to convey the land.

In Treat v. Jemison, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority of the court held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration and thus did not meet the requirements for an enforceable agreement under common law. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that there should be no requirement of consideration in order for a contract to be valid and binding on both parties. He argued that if two people agree to something with mutual assent then it should be considered legally binding regardless of any exchange or lack thereof between them. Furthermore, he argued that requiring consideration would lead to more litigation as each party would attempt to prove their side's contribution in order for the contract to stand up in court. Ultimately, his dissent was unsuccessful and the majority opinion prevailed; however, his arguments remain relevant today as courts continue grapple with how best protect individuals who enter into agreements without exchanging anything tangible or valuable