Dunphy v. Kleinsmith and Duer was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1870. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Dunphy, had entered into a contract with the defendants, Kleinsmith and Duer, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Dunphy paid the defendants $1,000 as a down payment, but the defendants refused to deliver the steamboat. Dunphy then sued the defendants for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the defendants had breached the contract by refusing to deliver the steamboat, and that Dunphy was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Dunphy was entitled to recover the $1,000 down payment, as well as any other damages that he had suffered as a result of the breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Dunphy was entitled to damages for the breach of contract by the defendants, and that he was entitled to recover the $1,000 down payment. The Court also held that Dunphy was entitled to any other damages that he had suffered as a result of the breach.

In the case of Dunphy v. Kleinsmith and Duer, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established law. He noted that under existing precedent, an executor or administrator had no right to bring suit against another party for damages caused by their negligence unless they were specifically authorized by statute or court order. In this case, there was no such authorization given; thus, according to Justice Field's interpretation of the law at the time, Dunphy could not recover any damages from Kleinsmith and Duer as his executor. Furthermore, even if it were possible for him to do so without specific authorization from either a statute or court order - which it wasn't - then he would have been required to prove actual malice on behalf of Kleinsmith and Duer in order for his claim against them to be successful. As such, Justice Field concluded that since neither condition had been met here (i.e., there was no statutory authority allowing Dunphy’s action nor evidence showing malicious intent), then judgment should have gone in favor of Kleinsmith and Duer instead of being reversed as it ultimately was by the majority opinion