Vigel v. Hopp was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between two individuals, Vigel and Hopp, in which Vigel agreed to pay Hopp a certain amount of money in exchange for Hopp's promise to perform certain services. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not involve any illegal activity. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties were of sound mind and had the capacity to enter into a contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of consent. The Court noted that both parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and had not been coerced into doing so. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Vigel and Hopp was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Vigel v. Hopp, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a party who had been wrongfully dispossessed of property could recover damages from another party who had received it as long as they were not aware of any defect in their title when they purchased it. In this case, he argued that Hopp should be able to recover for his losses because he did not have knowledge or notice of any defects in Vigel's title at the time he purchased it and thus should not be held liable for them now. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if Hopp was found liable for these damages then other innocent purchasers would also become liable which would create an unfair burden on them and discourage future purchases by potential buyers due to fear of liability. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by stating that since there was no evidence presented showing actual knowledge or notice on behalf of Hopp regarding any defects with Vigel’s title at the time he made his purchase then justice required him to be relieved from responsibility for those same defects now.