Moore v. Simonds is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1879. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Michigan. The plaintiff, Moore, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Simonds, in 1867. Simonds, however, argued that the deed was invalid because it had not been properly recorded. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Moore, ruling that the deed was valid and that Moore was the rightful owner of the land. The Court held that the deed was valid because it had been delivered to Moore and accepted by him, and that the failure to record the deed did not invalidate it. The Court also held that the statute of limitations had not expired, and that Moore was therefore entitled to the land. In its decision, the Court established the principle that a deed is valid if it is delivered and accepted, regardless of whether it is recorded. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still used today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Moore v. Simonds, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a great deal of confusion. He argued that it was well-settled law that when an action is brought against two or more defendants jointly, all must be served with process before any can be held liable for damages. The majority had disregarded this principle by allowing one defendant who had not been served with process to be held liable for damages along with those who were properly served. Justice Field believed this ruling could have far-reaching implications as it would allow plaintiffs to bring actions against multiple defendants without serving them all at once, thus creating uncertainty about which parties are actually being sued and potentially leading to unfair judgments based on incomplete information. Furthermore, he noted that such a ruling could also encourage collusion between some of the defendants since they may choose not to serve certain individuals in order to avoid liability while still receiving protection from other co-defendants who were properly served but unable or unwilling pay their share of damages awarded by the court.