Johnson v. Christian is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Arkansas. The plaintiff, Johnson, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Christian, in 1876. Christian, however, argued that he had never sold the land to Johnson and that Johnson had no legal right to the property. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Johnson, ruling that he had acquired the land through a valid contract with Christian. The Court found that Johnson had provided sufficient evidence to prove that he had purchased the land from Christian, and that Christian had failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. The Court also noted that Johnson had taken possession of the land and had made improvements to it, which further supported his claim of ownership. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that Johnson was the rightful owner of the land and that Christian had no legal right to it. The Court also ordered Christian to pay Johnson the amount of money that Johnson had paid for the land. This case established the principle that a valid contract between two parties is sufficient to transfer ownership of a piece of land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Johnson v. Christian, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a provision of California law and failed to consider its legislative history. He argued that under the plain language of the statute, it was clear that when an action is brought against two or more defendants for a single cause of action, they must be joined together as co-defendants in order to obtain judgment against them jointly. The majority's interpretation would allow one defendant to be sued separately from another even though they were liable for a single cause of action - something which he believed was contrary to both common sense and public policy. Justice Field also noted that this interpretation could lead to unfairness since it would enable plaintiffs who are unable or unwilling to sue all defendants at once due solely on their own volition rather than any legal requirement imposed by state law.