King v. Cornell is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1882. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, King, had contracted with the defendant, Cornell, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. King paid the full amount, but Cornell refused to deliver the boat. King then sued Cornell for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Cornell was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Cornell had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and had acted in bad faith. The Court also held that King was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court awarded King the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as attorney's fees. The Court's decision in King v. Cornell established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. The Court also established that a party who breaches a contract in bad faith is liable for attorney's fees. This case is still cited today as an example of the legal principles of contract law.

In the case of King v. Cornell, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that while an agreement may have been made without consideration or in violation of a state law, if both parties intended to enter into the contract and acted upon it accordingly then they should be bound by its terms regardless of any technicalities which might otherwise render it invalid. Furthermore, he noted that there had long been precedent for enforcing such agreements as valid contracts under certain circumstances; thus, he felt that denying enforcement would lead to unjust results and create uncertainty regarding contractual obligations going forward.