Arthur v. Davies is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1877. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Arthur, had contracted with the defendant, Davies, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Arthur had paid $1,000 in cash and agreed to pay the remaining $1,000 in installments. However, Davies refused to deliver the steamboat until the full amount was paid. The Supreme Court held that Arthur was entitled to the steamboat, even though he had not yet paid the full amount. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and binding, and that Davies had no right to refuse to deliver the steamboat until the full amount was paid. The Court also held that Arthur was entitled to damages for the delay in delivery. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Arthur was entitled to the steamboat and damages for the delay in delivery. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and binding, and that Davies had no right to refuse to deliver the steamboat until the full amount was paid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Arthur v. Davies, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would create a dangerous legal principle. He argued that under existing law, an executor or administrator of a deceased person could not be held liable for debts incurred by their predecessor unless they had assumed such liability through contract or otherwise agreed to pay them. The majority opinion allowed creditors to hold administrators responsible for debts even if there was no agreement between them and the decedent's estate; this created a new rule which Justice Field found unacceptable because it imposed obligations on parties who were not bound by any prior agreement with the decedent. Furthermore, he noted that allowing creditors to collect from estates without any contractual obligation would lead to unfairness as some debtors might be able to take advantage of those unable or unwilling to defend themselves against claims made after death. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while courts should strive towards justice when deciding cases involving disputes over property rights, they must also adhere strictly and faithfully follow established principles of law so as not undermine public confidence in judicial decisions.