Head v. Hargrave is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1881. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Head, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Hargrave, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Head paid the full amount of the purchase price, but Hargrave refused to deliver the steamboat. Head then sued Hargrave for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Head was entitled to recover the purchase price of the steamboat from Hargrave. The Court reasoned that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable, and that Head had fully performed his obligations under the contract. The Court also held that Hargrave was liable for damages for breach of contract, and that Head was entitled to recover the full purchase price of the steamboat. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Head was entitled to recover the purchase price of the steamboat from Hargrave. The Court found that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable, and that Head had fully performed his obligations under the contract. The Court also held that Hargrave was liable for damages for breach of contract, and that Head was entitled to recover the full purchase price of the steamboat.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Head v. Hargrave, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted and misapplied a prior decision of the Supreme Court. He argued that under the facts of this case, there was no legal basis for denying compensation to Mrs. Head for her services as an agent on behalf of Mr. Hargrave's estate; rather, he asserted that she should be compensated according to equitable principles based upon her efforts and success in recovering assets belonging to his estate which would otherwise have been lost or diminished by debtors' insolvency or frauds committed against it. Justice Field further noted that while it may not be possible to determine with precision what amount is due Mrs. Head from Mr. Hargrave's estate, such determination must rest within sound discretion exercised by a court of equity after taking into consideration all relevant factors including those enumerated in previous cases decided by the Supreme Court involving similar circumstances - namely: (1) The nature and extent of services rendered; (2) The value thereof; (3) The difficulty attending their performance; (4) Any special knowledge possessed by claimant concerning them; and (5) All other matters pertinent thereto bearing upon just compensation for such services rendered on behalf of another person’s property interests or rights therein . In conclusion, Justice Field concluded that since these considerations were absent from its analysis, he could not agree with the majority’s holding nor affirm its judgment denying recovery to Mrs. Head without more evidence being presented before a proper tribunal having jurisdiction over such matters so as allow full exploration into all relevant facts surrounding this dispute between parties involved herein..