Libby v. Hopkins is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1881. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Libby, was the owner of the steamboat and had entered into a contract with the defendant, Hopkins, to sell the boat. Hopkins had paid a portion of the purchase price, but had failed to pay the remainder. Libby then sued Hopkins for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Hopkins was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Hopkins had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract. The Court also held that Libby was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court noted that the damages should be sufficient to put Libby in the same position he would have been in had the contract been performed. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Hopkins was liable for breach of contract and that Libby was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also noted that the damages should be sufficient to put Libby in the same position he would have been in had the contract been performed.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Libby v. Hopkins, stating that he could not agree with the majority's decision to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court. He argued that under a contract between Libby and Hopkins, Libby was entitled to receive payment for his services as an agent of Hopkins' business. The contract stated that if any dispute arose between them regarding compensation, it would be settled by arbitration according to certain rules set forth in their agreement. In this case, however, no such arbitration had taken place; instead, both parties filed suit against each other in court without first attempting to settle their differences through arbitration as agreed upon in their contract. Justice Field believed this violated the terms of their agreement and should have been addressed through arbitration before either party sought legal action from a court of law. Therefore he concluded that since there was no evidence presented at trial indicating otherwise or showing why they were unable to arbitrate prior to filing suit against one another - which is what they had mutually agreed upon - then justice demanded that judgment be rendered for Libby on his claim for damages due him from Hopkins under their contractual arrangement