William S. Godbe v. Tootle et al was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a dispute between Godbe and Tootle over a contract for the sale of a mining claim in Utah. Godbe had agreed to purchase the claim from Tootle for $2,000, but Tootle later sold the claim to another party for a higher price. Godbe sued Tootle for breach of contract, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that Godbe was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court reasoned that Godbe had a valid contract with Tootle, and that Tootle had breached the contract by selling the claim to another party. The Court also held that Godbe was entitled to damages for the difference between the price he had agreed to pay and the higher price Tootle received from the other party. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Godbe, awarding him damages for the breach of contract. The case established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages for the difference between the agreed-upon price and the higher price received by the other party.

In the case of William S. Godbe v. Tootle et al, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy and thus should not be recognized by courts of law. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion on the grounds that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion regarding public policy considerations, he argued that there was no legal basis for refusing to enforce such contracts as long as both parties had acted in good faith and intended to abide by its terms at the time it was made. He further noted that denying enforcement would lead to injustice since one party may have already performed their obligations under said contract before learning about its illegality or invalidity due to lack of consideration or other issues. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that these types of agreements should still be enforced despite any potential violations against public policy so long as all involved parties acted honestly and in good faith when entering into them