Kirkbride v. Lafayette County, Missouri was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of taxation. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Kirkbride, and the defendant, Lafayette County, Missouri. Kirkbride had purchased a tract of land in the county and was assessed a tax on the land. He argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it was based on an assessment that was higher than the actual value of the land. The Supreme Court held that the tax was unconstitutional because it was based on an assessment that was higher than the actual value of the land. The Court reasoned that the tax was a taking of property without just compensation, which violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Court also held that the tax was not a valid exercise of the state's power to tax, as it was not based on a reasonable assessment of the value of the property. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that taxes must be based on a reasonable assessment of the value of the property in order to be valid. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still used today to determine the validity of taxes.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Kirkbride v. Lafayette County, Missouri. He argued that the majority's decision was based on a misapplication of established law and precedent. The case involved a dispute over an alleged contract between two parties to purchase land for $3,000 with payment due within one year from date of sale. The majority held that since no specific time had been set for payment, it could be made at any time before expiration of the one-year period; however Justice Field disagreed and argued that under existing law such contracts must specify when payments are due or else they will not be enforced by courts as valid agreements. Furthermore he noted that even if there were some ambiguity in this particular agreement regarding timing of payments, it should have been construed against the party seeking enforcement (the plaintiff). In conclusion Justice Field maintained his position that since no definite time had been specified for payment in this case then there was no enforceable contract between the parties and thus judgment should have gone to defendant instead of plaintiff as decided by majority opinion.