Arthur v. Sussfield 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 horse. The plaintiff, Arthur, had agreed to purchase a horse from the defendant, Sussfield, for $100. Arthur paid the full amount, but Sussfield refused to deliver the horse. Arthur then sued Sussfield for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Arthur was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, from Sussfield. The Court reasoned that Sussfield had breached the contract by failing to deliver the horse, and that Arthur was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Arthur was entitled to interest on the purchase price, as the contract had specified that the purchase price was to be paid in full at the time of delivery. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Arthur was entitled to recover the full purchase price of the horse, plus interest, from Sussfield for breach of contract. The Court's decision established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, including interest, to the other party.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Arthur v. Sussfield, a case concerning whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages resulting from their negligence when they had no knowledge of the harm that was caused. Justice Field argued that a person should only be held responsible if they were aware of the potential damage and acted with disregard to it. He reasoned that since there was no evidence presented in this case to suggest that either party knew about any possible injury, then neither one should be found liable for damages. Furthermore, he noted how allowing such liability would create an unfair burden on individuals who may have been unaware of any potential danger posed by their actions and thus did not take steps to prevent it from occurring. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that holding someone accountable without proof of knowledge or intent would set a dangerous precedent and lead to unjust outcomes in future cases involving similar issues.