Cochrane v. Deener 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 cotton. The plaintiff, Cochrane, was a cotton broker who had entered into a contract with the defendant, Deener, to purchase cotton at a certain price. The contract was to be fulfilled within a certain time frame. However, Deener failed to deliver the cotton within the specified time frame, and Cochrane sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Deener was liable for breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and binding, and that Deener had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract. The Court also held that Cochrane was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court noted that the damages should be calculated based on the difference between the contract price and the market price of the cotton at the time of the breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Deener was liable for breach of contract and that Cochrane was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that the damages should be calculated based on the difference between the contract price and the market price of the cotton at the time of the breach.

In the case of Cochrane v. Deener, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract for sale of land in Kentucky could be enforced by specific performance when it had been made before the passage of an act that prohibited such contracts. The majority opinion held that since there was no evidence that either party intended to violate any law at the time they entered into their agreement, and since specific performance would not result in a violation of any existing laws, then enforcement should be allowed. Justice Field dissented from this opinion on two grounds: firstly, he argued that even if neither party intended to break any laws at the time they agreed upon their contract, allowing its enforcement would still constitute an indirect violation; secondly he argued that enforcing such contracts violated public policy as expressed through legislation passed by Congress and state legislatures which sought to protect citizens from being forced into unwanted agreements or having their property taken without due process or just compensation.