In Turton v. Dufief, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Turton, a merchant, and Dufief, a ship captain. Turton had hired Dufief to transport goods from New York to San Francisco. The contract stated that Dufief would be paid a certain amount of money upon the successful completion of the voyage. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in good faith and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court noted that the contract was not against public policy and that it was not unconscionable. The Court also held that Dufief was entitled to the money he was promised in the contract. The Court reasoned that Dufief had performed his duties in accordance with the contract and that he had fulfilled his obligations. Therefore, the Court held that Dufief was entitled to the money he was promised in the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Turton and Dufief was valid and enforceable. The Court also held that Dufief was entitled to the money he was promised in the contract.

In Turton v. Dufief, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an act of Congress. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated federal law and thus was void ab initio (from the beginning). However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that although contracts which violate public policy are generally unenforceable, there is no evidence that Congress intended for its act to have such a broad effect as invalidating private contracts entered into before its passage. Furthermore, he noted that if all pre-existing contracts were rendered void by acts of Congress then citizens would suffer great losses due to their inability to rely on existing agreements with each other or enforce them in court. As such, Justice Field concluded that while certain types of illegal contracts may still be unenforceable even after they have been made valid by subsequent legislation or judicial decisions, this particular agreement should remain binding since it did not contravene any clear intent expressed by Congress at the time it was created.