Chapman v. Barney was a Supreme Court case decided in 1892. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Chapman, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Barney, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. However, Barney failed to deliver the boat as promised, and Chapman sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Barney was liable for damages. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, and that Barney had breached the contract by failing to deliver the boat. The Court also held that Chapman was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and that the damages should be equal to the amount of the contract, or $2,000. The decision in Chapman v. Barney established the principle that a breach of contract is actionable and that damages should be equal to the amount of the contract. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of contracts and the need to enforce them.

In the dissenting opinion of Chapman v. Barney, Justice Field argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an unjust result for the plaintiff. He believed that Congress had intended to provide relief from state laws in cases where federal rights were violated, which he felt was true in this case. The defendant had been convicted under a state statute which prohibited certain activities related to slavery; however, since these activities were also prohibited by federal law at the time, Justice Field argued that they should be considered as having been done "in violation of any right secured or protected" by federal law and thus subject to removal into federal court for trial. Furthermore, he noted that even if it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt whether or not there had actually been a violation of any particular right granted by Congress at issue here, then it would still have been appropriate for Congress to intervene on behalf of those who may have suffered injustice due to their convictions under such statutes. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded his dissent with strong words against what he saw as an unjust ruling: “The judgment below is reversed without regard either to justice or equity."