Bissell v. Foss & Others was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of a contract between two parties. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Bissell, and the defendants, Foss & Others, over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. Bissell had agreed to purchase the steamboat from Foss & Others for a certain sum of money, but the defendants refused to deliver the boat. Bissell then sued the defendants for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the parties 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 performance of the contract. 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 Bissell was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Bissell was entitled to damages for the breach of contract by Foss & Others. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Bissell was entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in BISSELL v. FOSS & OTHERS, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. He argued that it was unjust for a party who had no knowledge of any defect in title to be held liable for damages resulting from such a defect. According to Justice Field, this would create an unreasonable burden on purchasers of real estate since they could not possibly know all defects in title before purchasing property. Furthermore, he noted that if parties were allowed to recover damages due to defective titles without having actual knowledge of them beforehand, then sellers would have little incentive or protection against claims made by buyers after purchase. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing recovery based solely on constructive notice ran counter both legal precedent and basic principles of fairness and justice; thus he dissented from the majority opinion which found Foss et al liable for damages caused by their defective deed despite lack of actual notice thereof prior to sale