Hannibal v. Fauntleroy was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a slave. The plaintiff, Hannibal, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Fauntleroy, to purchase a slave for $1,000. Hannibal paid the full amount, but Fauntleroy refused to deliver the slave. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the payment of money was sufficient consideration for the sale of the slave. The Court also held that the contract was not void for being against public policy, as the sale of slaves was not illegal at the time. The Court also held that the contract was not void for being against public policy, as the sale of slaves was not illegal at the time. The Court further held that the contract was not void for being against public policy, as the sale of slaves was not illegal at the time. The Court also held that the contract was not void for being against public policy, as the sale of slaves was not illegal at the time. The Court ultimately held that Hannibal was entitled to specific performance of the contract, and ordered Fauntleroy to deliver the slave to Hannibal. The Court also ordered Fauntleroy to pay Hannibal the sum of $1,000, plus interest, as damages for his breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hannibal v. Fauntleroy, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a party who had been wrongfully dispossessed of land could recover damages for rents and profits from those who had unlawfully taken possession. In this case, he noted that it was undisputed that Hannibal had been wrongfully dispossessed by Fauntleroy and his co-defendants; thus, Justice Field concluded that Hannibal should have been allowed to recover damages for rents and profits as well as compensation for improvements made on the property during his wrongful possession. Furthermore, he argued there were no legal grounds upon which to deny recovery since there was no evidence of any agreement between parties or other circumstances indicating an intention not to seek such relief. Ultimately, Justice Field believed it would be unjust if a party whose rights were violated could not receive full compensation simply because they did not bring suit within five years after their cause of action accrued - especially when they acted with reasonable diligence in attempting to regain their rightful title but were prevented from doing so due to fraud or mistake committed by another person or persons acting in bad faith.