Hall v. Macneale was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Hall, and the defendant, Macneale, for the sale of a steamboat. Hall had agreed to pay Macneale $2,000 for the boat, and Macneale had agreed to deliver the boat to Hall. However, Macneale failed to deliver the boat, and Hall sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Hall and Macneale was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also noted that the contract was not illegal or against public policy, and that it was not uncertain or indefinite. Therefore, the Court held that Hall was entitled to damages for Macneale's breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hall v. Macneale, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the language of a contract between two parties and failed to consider its context. The case involved an agreement between Hall and Macneale for Hall to build a house on land owned by Macneale; however, when construction was completed, it was discovered that part of the building extended onto adjoining property not owned by either party. In his dissent Justice Field argued that although this encroachment did occur, it should have been considered as part of their original agreement since both parties were aware at the time they entered into their contract that there would be some overlap with neighboring properties due to discrepancies in survey lines. He further noted how such an interpretation is consistent with prior court decisions which held contracts must be interpreted according to what both parties intended at the time they made them rather than strictly adhering to literal interpretations of words used within those agreements.