Bond v. Davenport is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Bond, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Davenport, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Bond paid the full amount of the purchase price, but Davenport refused to deliver the steamboat. Bond then brought suit against Davenport for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Davenport was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable, and that Davenport had breached the contract by refusing to deliver the steamboat. The Court also held that Bond was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court awarded Bond the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as damages for the breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Davenport was liable for breach of contract and awarded Bond the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as damages for the breach.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bond v. Davenport, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law regulating local matters such as those at issue in this case. He argued that the power of Congress was limited by the Constitution and it could not pass laws on matters which were within state jurisdiction. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress did have such power then it would be able to override any decision made by state courts or legislatures regarding local issues. As a result, Justice Field concluded that the act passed by Congress was unconstitutional and should be struck down as invalid.