In Warren v. Van Brunt, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between the plaintiff, Warren, and the defendant, Van Brunt, in which Warren agreed to pay Van Brunt a certain sum of money in exchange for the use of a certain piece of land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the agreement. 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 fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court found that there was no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Warren and Van Brunt was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Warren v. Van Brunt, arguing that the majority had misapplied a prior Supreme Court decision and failed to consider relevant facts of the case. He argued that under New York law, which governed this dispute between two parties from different states, an oral contract could be enforced if it was made with consideration and did not violate any public policy or statute. The majority opinion had relied on a previous Supreme Court ruling involving contracts for real estate sales without considering whether those same principles applied to this case involving personal property (a horse). Justice Field noted that there were no statutes prohibiting such contracts in New York at the time of its formation as a state nor when this particular contract was formed; thus he concluded that it should have been enforced by the court below. Furthermore, he believed there was sufficient evidence presented to show consideration for both parties’ promises and thus enforceability of their agreement according to New York law.