Webb & Another v. Barnwall & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Webb and Barnwall, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a tract of land. Barnwall had agreed to pay Webb a certain amount of money for the land, but Webb had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Barnwall then sued Webb for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found 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 found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Barnwall had paid Webb the agreed-upon amount of money. The Court also held that Webb was liable for breach of contract, as he had failed to deliver the deed to the land. The Court found that Webb had breached the contract by failing to deliver the deed, and that Barnwall was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Barnwall was entitled to an injunction preventing Webb from selling the land to anyone else. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Webb and Barnwall was valid and enforceable, and that Webb was liable for breach of contract. The Court also held that Barnwall was entitled to damages and an injunction preventing Webb from selling the land to anyone else.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Webb & Another v. Barnwall & Another, arguing that the majority’s decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an absurd result. He argued that under existing law, a party who had been wrongfully dispossessed of land could recover damages for rents and profits from the time of such dispossession until judgment was rendered against them. The majority held that this rule did not apply when there were two successive wrongful possessors; however, Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation as it would leave no remedy for those wrongfully deprived of their property rights by multiple parties in succession. Furthermore, he noted that if one party wrongfully possessed land but then conveyed it to another before judgment was entered against them, both parties should be liable for any damages resulting from their possession since they were both responsible for depriving the rightful owner of its use during their respective periods of possession. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting how unjust it would be if someone who had been unlawfully deprived of their property rights could not obtain compensation simply because there happened to have been more than one person involved in taking away those rights over time.