More v. Steinbach is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of real estate. The plaintiff, More, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Steinbach, to purchase a piece of real estate. The contract stated that the purchase price was to be paid in installments, with the final payment due on a certain date. Steinbach failed to make the final payment on the due date, and More sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Steinbach was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Steinbach had failed to make the final payment on the due date as required by the contract. The Court also held that More was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and that the damages should be calculated based on the difference between the purchase price and the fair market value of the property at the time of the breach. The Court also held that More was entitled to interest on the unpaid balance of the purchase price.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in More v. Steinbach, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of state law and an incorrect application of federal jurisdiction. He argued that while it is true that under California law, a married woman has no right to her separate property unless she specifically claims it in writing before or at the time of marriage, this does not mean that such rights are forfeited if they are not claimed within those parameters. Rather, he argued that since there was no dispute as to whether Mrs. More had acquired certain real estate prior to her marriage with Mr. Steinbach - which would have been considered her separate property - then regardless of whether she made any claim for it during their union or after its dissolution by death, she still retained title over said land according to California law and thus could bring suit against Mr. Steinbach for trespass upon said land without having first obtained permission from a court of equity as required by federal jurisdiction rules set forth in section 709 Rev Stat US (1878). Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting his belief that Mrs. More should be allowed to pursue legal action against Mr. Steinbach without being subject to additional requirements imposed by federal courts due solely because she failed to make timely claim for her separate property during their marriage per California state laws governing marital relations between husband and wife