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 a dissenting opinion in the case of Casey v. Galli, arguing that the majority had misapplied existing law and failed to consider important facts. He argued that under California law, an oral contract was binding even if it did not contain all of the terms necessary for a valid written agreement. Furthermore, he noted that there were sufficient facts presented by both parties to support their respective positions on whether or not such an oral contract existed between them. In addition, Justice Field pointed out that while some evidence may have been excluded from consideration due to procedural errors made during trial proceedings, this should not be used as grounds for overturning a jury's verdict when other evidence is available which could support either side's position on the matter at hand. As such, he concluded his dissent by stating his belief that the judgment should be reversed and remanded back to state court so further proceedings could take place with proper consideration given to all relevant facts and applicable laws in order to reach a just outcome in this case.