Sabariego v. Maverick is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land in Texas. The plaintiff, Sabariego, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Maverick, to purchase a tract of land in Texas. The contract provided that the land would be conveyed to Sabariego upon payment of the purchase price. Sabariego paid the purchase price, but Maverick refused to convey the land. 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 a mutual understanding of the terms of the contract. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of Sabariego, as he was a competent adult. The Court further held that Maverick was obligated to convey the land to Sabariego upon payment of the purchase price. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Sabariego was entitled to specific performance of the contract, and ordered Maverick to convey the land to Sabariego. The Court also awarded damages to Sabariego for Maverick's breach of the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Sabariego v. Maverick, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a "greater confusion of titles" than already existed. He argued that under Texas law, which governed this case, title passed from one party to another when a deed was executed and delivered; thus, even if Maverick had not been aware of any prior conveyance or lien on the property at issue in this case (which he did not), his title should still be recognized as valid because it had been properly conveyed by Sabariego. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that while there may have been some irregularities with respect to how Sabariego acquired her own title (i.e., through inheritance rather than purchase), these irregularities were irrelevant since they occurred before she ever transferred ownership of the land in question - meaning they could not invalidate Maverick's claim after-the-fact. Ultimately then, Justice Field concluded that based on existing legal principles and precedents set forth by other courts within Texas' jurisdiction - including those cited by both parties during oral arguments - Maverick should be allowed to retain possession of his property without interference from third parties such as Sabariego who are attempting to challenge its validity retroactively.