Wise v. Allis 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 dispute between two parties, Wise and Allis, over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. Wise had agreed to purchase the steamboat from Allis for a certain sum of money, but Allis refused to deliver the boat. Wise then sued Allis for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Wise and Allis 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 mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not void for lack of capacity, meaning that both parties had the legal capacity to enter into the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Wise and Allis was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, was not void for lack of mutuality, and was not void for lack of capacity.

In the case of Wise v. Allis, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider an important point: whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for his losses due to breach of contract. The majority held that since there was no written agreement between the parties, and thus no evidence of any consideration given by either party, then it could not be established that a valid contract existed at all. However, Justice Field argued that this conclusion did not take into account other forms of proof such as oral testimony from witnesses who were present when negotiations took place or circumstantial evidence indicating an implied understanding between both parties. He further noted that even if there was no express agreement made in writing, courts should still recognize contracts based on mutual promises and obligations where one party has already performed their part according to those terms. In sum, Justice Field believed that while it may have been difficult for the plaintiff to prove his claim under these circumstances without written documentation or direct witness testimony; nevertheless he should still be allowed some form of compensation for his losses incurred through breach of contract by another party