Deitsch v. Wiggins was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1872. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Deitsch, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Wiggins, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. The contract stated that the steamboat was to be delivered to Deitsch within a certain period of time. However, Wiggins failed to deliver the steamboat within the specified time frame. Deitsch then sued Wiggins for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that Wiggins had breached the contract by failing to deliver the steamboat within the specified time frame. The Court also held that Deitsch was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court awarded Deitsch $1,000 in damages, which was the amount of the purchase price of the steamboat. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Deitsch and Wiggins was valid and enforceable, and that Wiggins had breached the contract by failing to deliver the steamboat within the specified time frame. The Court awarded Deitsch $1,000 in damages for the breach of contract.

In Deitsch v. Wiggins, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and therefore was voidable by either party at any time before performance. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion that contracts which violate public policy are voidable, he argued that such contracts should still be enforceable until they have actually been voided or repudiated by one of the parties involved. He further argued that if a court were to hold otherwise then it would create uncertainty for all future contracts and undermine people’s faith in them as well as their ability to rely upon them being upheld in court. Therefore, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing against allowing courts to invalidate contracts based solely on their potential violation of public policy without first requiring proof of actual repudiation or avoidance by one of the contracting parties