Reichart v. Felps was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1867. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a horse. The plaintiff, Reichart, had agreed to purchase a horse from the defendant, Felps, for $100. After the horse was delivered, Reichart refused to pay the full amount, claiming that the horse was not of the quality that had been promised. Felps then sued Reichart for the full amount of the contract. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Felps, finding that Reichart had breached the contract by refusing to pay the full amount. The Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Reichart was liable for the full amount of the contract. The Court also held that the quality of the horse was not relevant to the enforceability of the contract, and that Reichart was not entitled to any damages for the alleged breach. This ruling established that contracts are binding and enforceable, regardless of the quality of the goods or services provided.

In Reichart v. Felps, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed of land in Missouri had been validly executed and delivered to its intended recipient. The majority opinion found that the deed had not been properly delivered due to an error on behalf of the grantor's attorney, who failed to include certain language required by state law when executing it. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that despite any technical errors or omissions in execution, delivery should be presumed if there is evidence showing that possession was taken by the grantee as well as other facts indicating intent for transfer of title. He further noted that such presumption could only be rebutted through clear proof otherwise; however no such proof existed here since all parties involved believed they were transferring title at the time of execution and delivery. Thus he concluded that under these circumstances, equity demanded recognition of a valid conveyance even though it may have technically violated state law requirements regarding formality