This case was heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1895. It involved a dispute between two parties, Case and Marchand, over a contract for the sale of a parcel of land. Case had agreed to purchase the land from Marchand for a certain sum of money, but Marchand refused to accept payment and instead sought to keep the land. Case then brought suit against Marchand, claiming that Marchand had breached the contract and was liable for damages. The Supreme Court held that Marchand was liable for damages, as he had breached the contract by refusing to accept payment. The Court also held that Case was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as any other damages that he had suffered as a result of the breach. The Court's decision in this case established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the non-breaching party is entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as any other damages that they have suffered as a result of the breach. This case is still cited today as an important precedent in contract law.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the court should not have reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, as it was based on a reasonable interpretation of state law and did not conflict with any federal laws or constitutional provisions. Furthermore, he noted that there were no facts presented to support Marchand's claim that his property had been taken without due process or just compensation. In conclusion, Justice Harlan stated that if Congress wanted to provide for such an action against a state government then they should pass legislation allowing for it; however, until then courts should respect decisions made by states within their own jurisdiction and refrain from overturning them unless absolutely necessary.