Hassall v. Wilcox was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1845. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a horse. The plaintiff, Hassall, had agreed to purchase a horse from the defendant, Wilcox, for $100. Wilcox had agreed to deliver the horse to Hassall, but failed to do so. Hassall then sued Wilcox for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Wilcox was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Wilcox had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and that Hassall was entitled to damages. The Court also held that Hassall was entitled to recover the full purchase price of the horse, plus interest. The decision in Hassall v. Wilcox established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This case also established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for the full purchase price of the goods or services, plus interest. This case is still cited today as an important precedent in contract law.

In the Supreme Court case of Hassall v. Wilcox, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He believed that the court had misinterpreted an earlier ruling by Chief Justice Taney in another case involving similar facts, and thus failed to properly apply it to this one. Furthermore, he felt that even if they were correct in their interpretation of Taney's ruling, then they still erred by failing to consider other relevant statutes which might have affected the outcome of this particular dispute. In conclusion, Field argued that since there were multiple legal issues at play here - including both statutory law as well as common law principles - it was inappropriate for them to decide on only one issue without considering all others involved.