Nash v. Towne was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1866. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Maine. The plaintiff, Nash, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Towne, in 1851. Towne, however, argued that the deed was invalid because it had not been properly recorded. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Nash, ruling that the deed was valid and that Nash was the rightful owner of the land. The Court held that the deed was valid because it had been delivered to Nash and accepted by him, and that the failure to record the deed did not invalidate it. The Court also held that Towne was estopped from denying the validity of the deed, as he had accepted payment from Nash and had not taken any action to challenge the deed's validity for fifteen years. The decision in Nash v. Towne established that a deed is valid even if it is not recorded, as long as it has been delivered and accepted by the parties involved. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of property law in the United States.

In Nash v. Towne, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the amount in controversy exceeded $500. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. In his dissent, Justice Field argued that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has exclusive authority to regulate cases involving citizens from different states where more than $500 is at stake. He further noted that while Congress had not yet exercised this power, it should be assumed they would do so eventually and thus courts should recognize their right to do so now rather than wait for them to act later on down the line. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress were allowed time to exercise its authority then there could be uniformity among all states when dealing with these types of cases instead of having each individual state create its own laws regarding interstate disputes involving large sums of money.