Glasgow v. Baker was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a horse. The plaintiff, Glasgow, had agreed to purchase a horse from the defendant, Baker, for $100. Baker had agreed to deliver the horse to Glasgow, but failed to do so. Glasgow then sued Baker for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Baker was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Baker had failed to fulfill his obligation to deliver the horse to Glasgow, and that Glasgow was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Glasgow was entitled to recover the $100 he had paid for the horse, plus interest. The Court's decision in Glasgow v. Baker established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of upholding contracts and the consequences of breaching them.

In the Supreme Court case of Glasgow v. Baker, Justice Black delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He believed that the state court had not violated any federal constitutional rights when it denied Glasgow's petition for habeas corpus relief because there was no evidence to suggest that his conviction or sentence were unconstitutional. Furthermore, Justice Black argued that even if there had been some violation of federal law, it would have been within the power of Congress to provide a remedy rather than allowing individuals such as Glasgow to seek relief through habeas corpus petitions in state courts. Ultimately, Justice Black concluded by stating that while he sympathized with those who felt their constitutional rights had been violated by state action, this particular case did not present sufficient grounds for overturning an otherwise valid conviction and sentence imposed by a duly constituted court.