GALIGHER v. JONES was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1883. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a horse. The plaintiff, Galigher, claimed that the defendant, Jones, had breached the contract by failing to pay the agreed-upon price for the horse. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Jones was liable for the breach. The Court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the breach, and that the damages should be calculated based on the difference between the agreed-upon price and the market value of the horse at the time of the breach. The Court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the damages from the date of the breach. The decision in this case established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages based on the difference between the agreed-upon price and the market value of the goods or services at the time of the breach.

In the Supreme Court case of Galigher v. Jones, Justice Black delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal law. He noted that while it is true that state laws can be used to interpret federal statutes, they cannot be used as a substitute for them. Furthermore, he argued that the majority had failed to consider relevant evidence and had instead relied solely on its own interpretation of state law without considering any other factors or arguments presented by either party. In conclusion, Justice Black stated his belief that the majority's decision should have been overturned due to their failure to properly apply federal statutory principles when interpreting this case.