Clough v. Curtis was a Supreme Court case decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. The plaintiff, Clough, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Curtis, to purchase a piece of land for $1,000. Clough paid Curtis the full amount, but Curtis refused to transfer the deed to Clough. Clough then sued Curtis for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Curtis was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Curtis had breached the contract by refusing to transfer the deed to Clough. The Court also held that Clough was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and awarded him the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest. The decision in Clough v. Curtis established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the damages should be equal to the amount of the purchase price, plus interest. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and is still used today as a basis for awarding damages in breach of contract cases.

In the Supreme Court case of Clough v. Curtis, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law and not federal law. He believed that Congress had exclusive power to regulate commerce between states and thus any regulation by a state would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress did intend for states to have such authority then it should have been explicitly stated in the Constitution or other laws passed by Congress. In conclusion, Justice Field disagreed with the majority's ruling because it violated both constitutional principles as well as congressional intent regarding interstate commerce regulations.