Wills et al. v. Claflin et al. 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, Wills and Claflin, who had entered into a contract in which Wills agreed to pay Claflin a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain piece of property. Claflin had already taken possession of the property and had made improvements to it. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court noted 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 noted that Claflin had already taken possession of the property and had made improvements to it, which was evidence that the contract was valid. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties had acted in good faith and that there was no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Wills and Claflin was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was supported by consideration and that there was no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court also held that Claflin had already taken possession of the property and had made improvements to it, which was evidence that the contract was valid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wills et al. v. Claflin et al., arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that, under existing law, courts could only grant relief when there had been an actual injury or wrong done to a party; here, however, no such injury existed since the plaintiffs were seeking equitable relief from an alleged breach of contract which did not cause them any harm or loss. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been some sort of legal wrong committed against them - for example if they had paid money on behalf of someone else who then failed to perform their obligations - it still would have been inappropriate for the court to intervene as this was essentially a private dispute between two parties and should be resolved through negotiation rather than litigation. Finally, Justice Field warned that allowing courts to grant equitable relief in cases where no actual harm has occurred will open up “a wide door” for future disputes and create uncertainty about what types of claims can be brought before a court without suffering any real damage first.