Handlin v. Wickliffe was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Handlin, had contracted to purchase the steamboat from the defendant, Wickliffe, for a certain sum of money. Handlin had paid the agreed-upon sum, but Wickliffe had failed to deliver the steamboat. Handlin then sued Wickliffe for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Wickliffe was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Wickliffe had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract and that Handlin was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Handlin was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as any other damages that Handlin had suffered as a result of the breach. The Court's decision in Handlin v. Wickliffe established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, including the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, and any other damages that the non-breaching party has suffered as a result of the breach. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and is still an important part of contract law today.

In Handlin v. Wickliffe, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even though it had been made in violation of state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and would encourage people to break the law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts are binding on both parties regardless of any violations of state laws or public policies. He argued that if one party is allowed to back out of an agreement simply because they have broken a law then no agreements can ever truly be trusted since either party may choose not to abide by them at any time for whatever reason they deem fit. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such behavior would create chaos in business transactions as well as undermine trust among individuals who enter into contracts with each other.