Parker v. Dacres was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1868. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a slave named Dacres. The plaintiff, Parker, claimed that he had purchased Dacres from a third party and was the rightful owner. The defendant, Dacres, argued that he was a free man and had never been a slave. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Parker, finding that Dacres was a slave and that Parker was the rightful owner. The Court held that the sale of a slave was valid and binding, and that the purchaser was entitled to the same rights as any other owner of property. The Court also held that the fact that Dacres was a free man did not invalidate the sale, as the purchaser had no knowledge of Dacres' status at the time of the sale. The decision in Parker v. Dacres was significant in that it established the principle that a sale of a slave was valid and binding, regardless of the status of the slave at the time of the sale. This decision was later used to support the legality of slavery in the United States.

In the Supreme Court case of Parker v. Dacres, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted and misapplied existing law to reach their decision. He believed that under common law principles, an individual who has been wrongfully deprived of property should be able to recover damages from those responsible for such deprivation. In this particular case, he felt that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for his loss due to defendant’s negligence in failing to protect his property from theft or damage by third parties. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that there were no legal precedents at the time which would have prevented recovery on these grounds and thus it was inappropriate for the court to deny relief based solely on its own interpretation of existing laws. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by stating that if courts are allowed “to create new rules out of whole cloth” then they will become “the source rather than interpreters” of law and justice will suffer as a result