Watt v. Starke 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 William Watt and John Starke, in which Watt agreed to pay Starke a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Starke had previously agreed to sell the land to Watt, but Watt had failed to make the payments as agreed. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Watt and Starke was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned 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 held that Watt had not waived his right to enforce the contract, as he had not taken any action that would indicate that he had done so. The Court's decision in Watt v. Starke established that a contract between two parties is valid and enforceable if it is supported by consideration and the parties have not waived their right to enforce it. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of contract law in the United States.

In the case of Watt v. Starke, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He noted that under prior decisions of this Court, when an individual has been wrongfully dispossessed from land by another person or entity, they are entitled to recover damages for their loss regardless of whether or not they have suffered any actual injury as a result. In this particular case, Watt had been unlawfully deprived of his property rights by Starke and thus deserved compensation for his losses even if he had not actually sustained any harm himself. Furthermore, Field argued that since the state court had already determined that Watt was entitled to damages due to being wrongfully dispossessed from his land it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to overturn such a ruling without good cause. As such, Justice Field concluded that there were no grounds upon which the majority could base its decision and therefore dissented from it accordingly