Burt v. Evory was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a horse. The plaintiff, Burt, had agreed to purchase a horse from the defendant, Evory, for $100. Burt paid the $100, but Evory refused to deliver the horse. Burt then sued Evory for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Burt and Evory 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 horse. The Court also found that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Evory. The Court ordered Evory to deliver the horse to Burt and to pay him $100 in damages. The Court also ordered Evory to pay Burt's court costs. This decision established the principle that contracts are binding and enforceable, and that parties must fulfill their obligations under the contract.

In the Supreme Court case of Burt v. Evory, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He argued that the court had failed to properly consider whether or not there was an implied contract between Burt and Evory, as well as failing to take into account other relevant facts such as their prior course of dealing with each other. Furthermore, Scalia noted that even if there were no express agreement between them, it could still be inferred from their actions over time that they had entered into some sort of contractual relationship. In conclusion, Justice Scalia believed that because the majority did not adequately address these issues in its ruling on this case, it should have been reversed instead of affirmed by the court.