Barney v. Schmeider was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1869. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a horse. The plaintiff, Barney, had agreed to purchase a horse from the defendant, Schmeider, for $100. After the horse was delivered, Barney refused to pay the agreed-upon price, claiming that the horse was not of the quality that had been promised. Schmeider then sued Barney for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Schmeider, finding that Barney had breached the contract by refusing to pay the agreed-upon price. The Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Barney was liable for the full amount of the purchase price. The Court also noted that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract, and that Barney had accepted the horse without any objection. The Court's decision in Barney v. Schmeider established the principle that parties to a contract are bound by the terms of the agreement, and that a breach of contract can result in liability for damages. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of upholding the terms of a contract.

In the case of Barney v. Schmeider, Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the majority decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He argued that under Missouri law, when an agreement is made between two parties to purchase land for a certain sum of money with no time limit specified in which payment must be made, then it becomes an executory contract and can only be enforced by action at law. The majority had held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration; however, Field disagreed with this reasoning as he believed there was sufficient consideration present in the form of mutual promises from both parties to perform their respective obligations under the contract. Furthermore, he argued that if such contracts are unenforceable due to lack of consideration then all agreements without specific time limits would become void since they could never have any legal effect or binding force on either party involved in them. Thus, according to Field's dissent it was clear that Missouri courts had previously recognized these types of executory contracts as valid and enforceable despite lacking express terms regarding timing for performance or payment so long as there were mutual promises between both parties involved in them