Drehman v. Stifle was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a parcel of land. The plaintiff, Drehman, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Stifle, to purchase a parcel of land. The contract stated that the purchase price was to be paid in installments, with the final payment due on a certain date. However, Stifle refused to accept the final payment when it was due, and Drehman sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Stifle had breached the contract by refusing to accept the final payment. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that Stifle had no legal justification for refusing to accept the payment. The Court also held that Drehman was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and ordered Stifle to pay the full purchase price of the land. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Stifle had breached the contract by refusing to accept the final payment, and ordered Stifle to pay the full purchase price of the land. This case established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that a contract must be honored according to its terms.

In the case of Drehman v. Stifle, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not received full payment for their services. The majority opinion held that contracts must be fulfilled in order for them to remain valid and enforceable, regardless of any payments made or not made by either party. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that it would create an unfair burden on those who have already performed their part of a contract but are unable to receive payment due to circumstances beyond their control. He argued that if such contracts were invalidated without consideration for these extenuating circumstances then individuals would suffer financial losses they did not deserve and should not bear responsibility for. Therefore, he concluded that there should be some flexibility in enforcing contracts so as to protect both parties involved while still upholding contractual obligations whenever possible.