Mendenhall v. Hall was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1872. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a tract of land in the state of Georgia. The plaintiff, Mendenhall, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Hall, to purchase the land for a certain sum of money. However, Hall failed to deliver the deed to Mendenhall, and Mendenhall sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Hall was liable for breach of contract, and that Mendenhall was entitled to damages. The Court held that Hall had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract, and that Mendenhall was entitled to recover the amount of money he had paid for the land, plus interest. The Court also held that Hall was liable for any damages that Mendenhall had suffered as a result of the breach of contract. The decision in Mendenhall v. Hall established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the damages should be equal to the amount of money that the other party has paid for the contract. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of contract law today.

In the case of Mendenhall v. Hall, Justice Black delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal constitutional principles. He believed that the court should have instead applied its own precedent from prior cases to determine whether or not there had been a violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his view, it was clear that Mrs. Mendenhall had been deprived of her liberty without any form of notice or hearing and thus she had suffered a deprivation of her right to due process as guaranteed by the Constitution. Furthermore, Justice Black noted that even if one were to accept an interpretation based on state law, such an approach would still be inadequate since it failed to take into account fundamental constitutional protections for individuals against arbitrary government action. Ultimately, Justice Black concluded by expressing his disagreement with both aspects underlying the majority's ruling and urged them to reconsider their position in light of established legal principles regarding due process rights under federal law