Casey v. Galli is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1877. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Casey, had contracted with the defendant, Galli, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Casey paid the full amount, but Galli refused to deliver the boat. The Supreme Court held that the contract 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 other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Galli. The Court held that Galli was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to deliver the steamboat to Casey. The Court also ordered Galli to pay damages to Casey for the delay in delivering the boat. The Court also held that Galli was liable for the costs of the lawsuit. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Casey and Galli was valid and enforceable, and that Galli was liable for breach of contract and damages.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Casey v. Galli, a case concerning an appeal from the Supreme Court of California regarding a contract dispute between two parties. Justice Field argued that the majority had erred by failing to consider certain evidence presented at trial which would have supported their decision and instead relied on other evidence which was not relevant to the issues before them. He further contended that even if all of this additional evidence were considered, it still did not support their conclusion as there were material facts in dispute which could only be determined by looking at all of the available testimony and documents related to the case. In his view, these facts should have been weighed more heavily than any single piece of circumstantial or hearsay evidence when making their ruling. Ultimately, he concluded that since there was no clear preponderance of proof either way on this matter, it should have been left for resolution by a jury rather than decided upon summarily by judges without considering all pertinent information first-hand.