This case was a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Page, was the owner of the steamboat, and the defendant, Burnstine, was the buyer. Page sued Burnstine for breach of contract, claiming that Burnstine had failed to make the payments as agreed upon in the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also found that Burnstine had failed to make the payments as agreed upon in the contract, and thus was in breach of the contract. The Court held that Page was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and ordered Burnstine to pay the damages. The Court also held that Page was entitled to an injunction to prevent Burnstine from selling the steamboat to anyone else. The Court also ordered Burnstine to pay the costs of the suit. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Page and Burnstine was valid and enforceable, and that Burnstine was in breach of the contract. The Court ordered Burnstine to pay damages and costs, and to refrain from selling the steamboat to anyone else.

In the case of Page v. Burnstine, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider an important point: whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contract. The majority held that since there was no written agreement between the parties, and because it could not be proven that either party intended to enter into a binding contract, then no such contract existed and thus no damages were due. However, Justice Field argued that even if there was no written agreement between them, this did not necessarily mean they had never agreed on anything; rather it may have been possible for them to reach some sort of verbal understanding regarding their obligations towards each other. He further noted that even though it could not be proved with certainty what those obligations were exactly - as is often true in cases involving oral contracts - this should still entitle the plaintiff to recover at least nominal damages from defendant for breaching whatever terms they had agreed upon orally. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that while he respected his colleagues' decision based on existing law and precedent set by previous cases concerning similar matters, he felt strongly enough about this particular issue so as to dissent from their ruling in order for his views on its merits be known publicly