Northern Liberty Market Company v. Kelly is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1885. The case involved a dispute between the Northern Liberty Market Company and the defendant, Kelly, over the ownership of a piece of property. The Northern Liberty Market Company had purchased the property from the original owner, and Kelly had subsequently purchased the property from the original owner's heirs. The Northern Liberty Market Company argued that their purchase of the property was valid, and that Kelly's purchase was invalid. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Northern Liberty Market Company, ruling that their purchase of the property was valid and that Kelly's purchase was invalid. The Court held that the original owner had the right to sell the property to the Northern Liberty Market Company, and that the heirs of the original owner did not have the right to sell the property to Kelly. The Court also held that the Northern Liberty Market Company had a valid claim to the property, and that Kelly did not.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Northern Liberty Market Company v. Kelly, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to unjust results. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a party who had been wrongfully dispossessed of property could recover damages for any loss suffered as a result of such dispossession. In this case, he noted that it was undisputed that Kelly had been wrongfully evicted from his business premises by Northern Liberty Market Company and thus should be entitled to compensation for any losses resulting from his eviction. The majority opinion held otherwise on the grounds that there were no specific allegations or proof regarding what those losses might have been; however Justice Field argued this requirement was not necessary given existing precedent which allowed recovery without such specificity being provided. As such, he concluded with an assertion that if parties are able to evict another person without consequence then "the law is shorn of its most essential attribute--protection."