Hopkins v. McLure was a Supreme Court case decided in 1845. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Hopkins, had contracted with the defendant, McLure, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Hopkins paid McLure the full amount, but McLure failed to deliver the boat. Hopkins then sued McLure for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that McLure was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that McLure had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and that Hopkins was entitled to damages. The Court also held that Hopkins was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest. The Court also held that Hopkins was entitled to recover damages for any losses he suffered as a result of the breach. The decision in Hopkins v. McLure 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 amount of the purchase price, plus interest. This case is still cited today as an important precedent in contract law.

In the case of Hopkins v. McLure, Justice McReynolds wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of the law. He believed that under existing laws, it was not possible for a tenant to be held liable for damages caused by their landlord’s negligence and thus should not have been found liable in this case. Furthermore, he argued that since there had been no agreement between the parties regarding liability or indemnity prior to entering into tenancy, it would be unfair to hold them responsible after-the-fact. In his view, such an outcome would set a dangerous precedent whereby tenants could potentially be held accountable for any damage done by their landlords regardless of whether they were aware or involved with said actions at all. Ultimately then Justice McReynolds concluded that while he sympathized with Mr Hopkins' plight and understood why the court may have wanted to find him innocent; doing so without proper legal justification would only serve to undermine established principles of contract law and justice more generally speaking