Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1883. The case involved a dispute between the Omaha Hotel Company and the Kountze Brothers, a banking firm in Omaha, Nebraska. The Kountze Brothers had loaned money to the Omaha Hotel Company and had taken a mortgage on the hotel as security for the loan. When the Omaha Hotel Company defaulted on the loan, the Kountze Brothers sought to foreclose on the mortgage. The Omaha Hotel Company argued that the mortgage was invalid because it had not been properly recorded in the county records. The Supreme Court held that the mortgage was valid and enforceable, even though it had not been recorded. The Court reasoned that the Kountze Brothers had taken reasonable steps to protect their interest in the property, and that the Omaha Hotel Company had been aware of the mortgage and had accepted the loan with the understanding that the Kountze Brothers had a security interest in the property. The Court also held that the Kountze Brothers had a right to foreclose on the mortgage, even though it had not been recorded. The decision in Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Company established that a mortgage can be valid and enforceable even if it has not been recorded in the county records. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of real estate law in the United States.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Company, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding upon them both, regardless of whether it has been reduced to writing or not. In this case, he believed there was an oral agreement between Kountze and Omaha Hotel Company which obligated each party to perform their respective duties under the terms of said agreement; thus making it enforceable by law. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there had been no such agreement made orally prior to entering into a written one later on - as alleged by Omaha Hotel Company - then they were still bound by its terms since they accepted payment from Kountze for services rendered under those same conditions outlined in the written contract. Therefore, according to Justice Field's dissent, either way would have resulted in a valid contractual obligation being enforced against both parties involved here: Kountze and Omaha Hotel Company alike.