Burgess v. Salmon is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1878. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of New York. The plaintiff, Burgess, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Salmon, and that Salmon had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Salmon argued that he had never sold the land to Burgess and that the deed was invalid. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Burgess, ruling that the deed was valid and that Burgess was the rightful owner of the land. The Court held that the deed was valid because it had been signed by Salmon and witnessed by two other individuals. The Court also held that Salmon had failed to prove that he had not sold the land to Burgess, and that Burgess had provided sufficient evidence to prove that he had purchased the land from Salmon. The Court's decision in Burgess v. Salmon established that a deed is valid if it is signed by the seller and witnessed by two other individuals. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of property law in the United States.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Burgess v. Salmon, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding upon them both, regardless of any subsequent changes to state laws or regulations which may have been made after the contract had already been agreed upon by both parties. In this case, he noted that there had been an agreement between Burgess and Salmon regarding certain land rights prior to any change in state law; thus, he believed it would be unjust for either party to now claim they were not bound by their original agreement due to such a change in law. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if one party could simply avoid fulfilling their contractual obligations whenever new legislation was passed then contracts would become meaningless as no one could rely on them being enforced over time. Therefore, he concluded his dissent with a call for reversal of the majority's decision so as to uphold the sanctity of contracts and ensure justice is served for all involved parties.