Neal v. Clark is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1895. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Neal, was the owner of the steamboat and had entered into a contract with the defendant, Clark, to sell the boat. Clark had paid a portion of the purchase price but had failed to pay the remainder. Neal then sued Clark for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Neal and Clark was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the contract. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. The Court ultimately held that Clark was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price. The Court also held that Neal was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. This case established the principle that contracts must be supported by consideration and must be mutual in order to be enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Neal v. Clark, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the law. He argued that under Louisiana state law, which governed this case, an executor or administrator had no authority to bring suit against another person for damages caused by their decedent’s negligence. In his view, it was up to the legislature to decide whether such suits should be allowed and if so how they should be conducted; until then courts were not authorized to create new causes of action through judicial interpretation of existing laws. Furthermore, he noted that allowing these types of lawsuits would open up a Pandora’s box as far as potential litigation is concerned since any number of people could sue each other for damages caused by their deceased relatives or friends without limitation or control from either legislative bodies or court systems. As such Justice Field concluded that while he sympathized with plaintiff's situation he felt compelled to dissent from the majority opinion because it exceeded its constitutional powers and undermined established legal principles regarding who can bring suit in civil cases involving wrongful death claims