Quimby v. Boyd was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of New York. The plaintiff, Quimby, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Boyd, and that Boyd had failed to deliver the deed to the property. Boyd argued that he had never sold the land to Quimby and that Quimby had no legal right to the property. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Quimby, ruling that he had a valid claim to the land. The Court held that Quimby had provided sufficient evidence to prove that he had purchased the land from Boyd and that Boyd had failed to deliver the deed. The Court also held that Quimby had a right to the land under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which states that a person cannot deny a contract that they have previously agreed to. The decision in Quimby v. Boyd established the legal principle that a person cannot deny a contract that they have previously agreed to. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and it is still an important part of contract law today.

In the Supreme Court case of Quimby v. Boyd, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He believed that the lower court had correctly decided that an agreement between two parties to pay for services rendered did not constitute a contract under California law because it lacked consideration. According to Field, this ruling was consistent with prior decisions from other courts and should have been upheld by the Supreme Court as well. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some form of consideration present in this particular case, it would still not make up for all of its deficiencies since both parties had already agreed on what they owed each other before any money changed hands. In conclusion, Justice Field disagreed with his colleagues' decision and urged them to reconsider their ruling so as to ensure consistency across similar cases in future legal proceedings.