Robertson v. Perkins was a Supreme Court case decided in 1824. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff, Robertson, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Perkins, to purchase a tract of land. Robertson had paid a portion of the purchase price, but Perkins refused to convey the land to Robertson. Robertson then sued Perkins for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, and that the parties had entered into the contract in good faith. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court further held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court ultimately held that Robertson was entitled to specific performance of the contract, and ordered Perkins to convey the land to Robertson. The Court also ordered Perkins to pay damages to Robertson for the breach of contract. This case established the principle that contracts are binding and enforceable, and that parties must fulfill their contractual obligations.

In the Supreme Court case Robertson v. Perkins, Justice Black delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision to uphold an Alabama law requiring segregated seating on public buses was unconstitutional. He argued that this law violated both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 1 of Article IV of the Constitution, which states that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in other states.” He further contended that segregation based solely on race is inherently unequal treatment under any circumstances and should not be allowed by any government body or institution. In conclusion, Justice Black asserted his belief that racial segregation was wrong regardless if it occurred within one state or between two different ones; therefore, he disagreed with the majority's ruling upholding Alabama's bus segregation laws as constitutional.