Barrell v. Tilton 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, Barrell and Tilton, over a contract that was made in 1867. Barrell had agreed to pay Tilton a certain amount of money for the purchase of a piece of land. However, Tilton had failed to deliver the deed to the land, and Barrell refused to pay the agreed-upon amount. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Tilton, finding that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the contract was binding and that Barrell was obligated to pay the agreed-upon amount. The Court also held that the failure to deliver the deed did not invalidate the contract, as the parties had already agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court's ruling in Barrell v. Tilton established that contracts are binding and enforceable, even if one of the parties fails to fulfill their obligations. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it serves as an important precedent for contract law in the United States.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Barrell v. Tilton, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. He argued that under California law, a creditor could not be held liable for any debt incurred by his debtor after he had assigned all of his rights in the property to another party; thus, it was unjust for Tilton to be held responsible for debts incurred by Barrell after such an assignment had been made. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were some legal basis on which liability could have been imposed upon Tilton as a result of this transaction, no evidence existed indicating that he had ever assumed responsibility or agreed to pay these debts himself. Thus, Justice Field concluded that it would be wrong and inequitable to hold him accountable for them when he never intended nor promised anything of the sort.