French v. Edwards is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1874. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, French, was the owner of the steamboat and the defendant, Edwards, was the buyer. At issue in the case was whether the contract between the two parties was valid. French argued that the contract was valid and that Edwards had breached it by failing to make the payments as agreed. Edwards argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and that Edwards had breached it. The Court found that the contract was properly executed and that Edwards had failed to make the payments as agreed. The Court also held that French was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The decision in French v. Edwards established that a contract is valid if it is properly executed and that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of properly executing contracts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in French v. Edwards, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a state court had no authority to grant an injunction against a federal officer acting under orders from Congress, as this would be an unconstitutional interference with Congressional powers. Furthermore, he noted that even if such action were permissible, it should not have been done without first giving notice of the application for relief and allowing time for opposition by those affected by it. In his view, granting injunctions ex parte violated due process rights guaranteed by both state and federal constitutions; thus making any order issued pursuant thereto voidable at least until proper notice could be given and opportunity provided for opposing parties to respond. Justice Field concluded his dissent noting that while he did not dispute the power of states over their own internal affairs or deny them right to protect citizens from wrongs committed within their borders, they must do so in accordance with constitutional limits imposed upon them when dealing with matters involving other states or federal government entities