Culliford v. Gomila is a Supreme Court case from 1891 that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The plaintiff, Culliford, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Gomila, to purchase a piece of land. Gomila had agreed to sell the land for a certain price, but then refused to honor the contract. Culliford sued Gomila for breach of contract. 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 void for lack of consideration, as Gomila had received something of value in exchange for his promise to sell the land. The Court also held that Gomila was liable for breach of contract, as he had failed to fulfill his promise to sell the land. The Court ordered Gomila to pay Culliford the amount of money that had been agreed upon in the contract. This case established the principle that contracts must be honored and that parties who breach contracts can be held liable for damages.

In the case of Culliford v. Gomila, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted the relevant statute and failed to consider its legislative history. He believed that Congress intended for all persons who were injured by an act of negligence to be able to recover damages regardless of whether they were passengers or not, and thus disagreed with the majority's conclusion that only passengers could sue for such injuries. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress had wanted to limit recovery solely to those who are passengers on vessels then it would have explicitly stated so in the statute itself rather than leaving it open-ended as it currently stands. As such, Justice Harlan concluded his dissent by arguing against what he saw as an overly restrictive interpretation of this law and instead advocated for a more expansive reading which would allow any person injured due to negligent acts committed aboard ships or other vessels at sea access their right under this legislation.