Shotwell v. Moore 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 Missouri. The plaintiff, Shotwell, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Moore, in 1883. Moore, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received full payment for the land. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Shotwell, ruling that the sale was valid and that Shotwell was the rightful owner of the land. The Court reasoned that Moore had accepted partial payment for the land and had not taken any action to reclaim it, thus indicating that he had accepted the sale. The Court also noted that Shotwell had taken possession of the land and had made improvements to it, further indicating that he was the rightful owner. The decision in Shotwell v. Moore established that a sale of land is valid even if the seller has not received full payment, as long as the seller has accepted partial payment and has not taken any action to reclaim the land. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving disputes over the ownership of land.

In the Supreme Court case of Shotwell v. Moore, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He believed that under the facts presented, there was no legal basis for denying Mrs. Shotwell her right to recover damages from Mr. Moore for his negligent act of driving an automobile into her horse-drawn carriage while she was riding it on a public highway in Pennsylvania. According to Justice Harlan, since both parties were engaged in lawful activities at the time of their collision - with neither party having any special privilege or immunity from liability - then each party should bear responsibility for their own negligence and not be absolved by virtue of contributory negligence laws as applied by the majority opinion. Furthermore, he noted that such laws are only applicable when one party has some sort of advantage over another; however this did not apply here since both parties were equally situated at all times during their encounter on the roadways leading up to and including when they collided with one another resulting in injury to Mrs Shotwell’s property (her horse). Therefore, according to Justice Harlan’s dissent, if either party is found liable then so too must be held responsible for damages caused due solely upon its own negligence regardless if contributory negligence applies or not given these particular circumstances