Jones v. Andrews was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1870. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Jones, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Andrews, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Jones paid Andrews the full amount, but Andrews failed to deliver the steamboat. Jones then sued Andrews for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Andrews was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Andrews had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and that Jones was entitled to damages. The Court also held that Jones was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as any other damages that he had suffered as a result of the breach. The Court's decision in Jones v. Andrews established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, including the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, and any other damages that the non-breaching party has suffered as a result of the breach. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still good law today.

In Jones v. Andrews, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a judgment of foreclosure and sale should be reversed due to an alleged irregularity in the proceedings. The majority opinion held that there had been no such irregularity and affirmed the lower court's decision. In dissent, Justice Field argued that while it may have been true that no legal irregularities occurred during the foreclosure process, this did not mean that justice had necessarily been served in this case. He noted that although all of the technicalities were followed correctly by both parties involved, it could still be possible for one party to take advantage of another if they are more knowledgeable about their rights or better able to present their arguments before a court. As such, he felt compelled to dissent from his colleagues' ruling on this matter as he believed further investigation into potential inequities between these two parties was necessary before any final judgement could be made regarding who truly deserved possession of the property at issue here.