Riggs v. Tayloe was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that when an individual has been wrongfully dispossessed of his property, he may bring suit against the party who wrongfully took possession of it and recover damages for any losses sustained as a result. The dispute arose out of a contract between William Riggs and John Tayloe to purchase land from each other. After entering into the agreement, Riggs paid Tayloe $1,000 but did not receive title to the land as promised by Tayloe. When Riggs brought suit against him for breach of contract, Taylor argued that he had already sold the land to another person before entering into this agreement with Riggs and thus could not be liable for breach of contract because there was no longer any property available under their original agreement. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and found in favor of Riggs on grounds that even though Taylor had transferred ownership prior to making his promise with respect to this particular piece of property, he still owed damages due to having breached his contractual obligations towards Mr.Rigg's detriment .

In Riggs v. Tayloe, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to recognize the importance of contract law and its implications for this case. He noted that contracts are essential to commerce, and when parties enter into an agreement they should be held accountable for their obligations under it. In this particular case, there was no dispute over whether or not a contract existed between the two parties; rather, it was about how much money one party owed another as part of fulfilling their contractual obligation. The majority ruled against enforcing any payment from either side due to lack of evidence regarding what amount each party agreed upon at the time they entered into the contract; however, Marshall disagreed with this ruling because he believed that if both sides were willing participants in entering into a binding agreement then both should be held responsible for upholding their end of it regardless of any uncertainty surrounding exact amounts involved.