Klein v. Russell is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1873. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff, Klein, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Russell, to purchase a tract of land in the state of Missouri. Klein had paid a portion of the purchase price and was in the process of paying the remainder when Russell refused to complete the sale. Klein then brought suit against Russell, seeking to compel him to complete the sale. The Supreme Court held that Klein was entitled to specific performance of the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and binding, and that Klein had performed his part of the agreement. The Court further held that specific performance was the appropriate remedy in this case, as it would provide Klein with the relief he was seeking. The Court's decision in Klein v. Russell established the principle that a party who has performed his part of a contract is entitled to specific performance of the contract. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and remains an important part of contract law today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Klein v. Russell, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether it has been approved by Congress or not. Furthermore, he stated that if one party breaches the contract then they are liable for damages to the other party as a result of their breach. In this case, Justice Field believed that Klein had breached his agreement with Russell and thus owed him damages for doing so; however, since Congress had not approved their agreement before it was made there could be no legal action taken against Klein for breaching it. As such, Justice Field concluded that while he agreed with much of what was said in the majority opinion regarding contracts needing congressional approval prior to being enforced by law courts; nevertheless he disagreed with its application in this particular instance due to its lack thereof at time when contract was entered into by parties involved