Norris v. Jackson was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1869. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Norris, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Jackson, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Norris paid the full amount, but Jackson refused to deliver the boat. Norris then sued Jackson for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract 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 performance of the other. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had an obligation to perform. The Court held that Norris was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court awarded Norris the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as damages for the delay in delivery of the boat. The Court also held that Norris was entitled to attorney's fees, as the breach of contract was willful and intentional. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Norris was entitled to damages for the breach of contract and awarded him the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as damages for the delay in delivery of the boat. The Court also held that Norris was entitled to attorney's fees, as the breach of contract was willful and intentional.

In Norris v. Jackson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that allowed for the sale of property to satisfy unpaid taxes was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it did not violate any provision of the Constitution and thus should be upheld. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that such laws violated both due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because they deprived individuals of their property without providing them an opportunity to contest or appeal their tax assessments in court before having their land sold off by public auction. He further argued that these laws were arbitrary and capricious as they gave no consideration to individual circumstances or ability to pay taxes on time; instead, all taxpayers were treated equally regardless of extenuating factors which could have prevented timely payment. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating he believed such laws constituted a deprivation of life or liberty without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's protections against government overreach into private affairs.