Peper v. Fordyce is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1886. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Peper, was the owner of the steamboat, and the defendant, Fordyce, was the buyer. Peper had agreed to sell the steamboat to Fordyce for a certain price, and Fordyce had agreed to pay the price in installments. However, Fordyce failed to make the payments as agreed, and Peper sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Peper was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price from Fordyce. The Court reasoned that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable, and that Fordyce had breached the contract by failing to make the payments as agreed. The Court also held that Peper was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, even though the steamboat had depreciated in value since the time of the contract. The Court reasoned that the depreciation in value was not caused by any fault of Peper, and that he was therefore entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Peper v. Fordyce, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that it was not within the court's jurisdiction to review state court decisions on matters of fact or law unless there had been an abuse of discretion by the lower courts. In this case, he believed that no such abuse had occurred; rather, it appeared as though both parties were treated fairly and impartially throughout all proceedings. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if some error had been committed by either party during trial proceedings, it should have been addressed through appeals processes instead of being brought before the Supreme Court for review. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that allowing federal courts to interfere with state court decisions without clear evidence of injustice or misconduct would be detrimental to our system of government and could potentially undermine public confidence in our legal system as a whole