Smith v. Black, Trustee is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1895. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property. The plaintiff, Smith, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Black, who was acting as a trustee for another party. Smith argued that he had paid the full purchase price for the property and that he was the rightful owner. Black argued that the purchase was invalid because Smith had not paid the full purchase price. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Smith, ruling that he had paid the full purchase price and was the rightful owner of the property. The Court held that Black had no right to withhold the property from Smith, as he had already received the full purchase price. The Court also held that Smith had a valid claim to the property and that Black had no right to withhold it from him. This ruling established that a trustee cannot withhold property from a purchaser who has paid the full purchase price.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Smith v. Black, Trustee. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent, as well as common sense. The case involved a dispute over whether an individual had authority to convey real estate without obtaining consent from his wife or her guardian. Justice Field asserted that under California law at the time of this transaction, married women were not allowed to convey property without their husband’s permission or approval by a court-appointed guardian if they were minors; thus, he concluded that it was impossible for any person other than the husband himself to have legal authority over such transactions involving married women and minors. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there had been no statute governing these matters in California at the time of this transaction (which he believed there was), then common sense would dictate that only husbands could legally authorize such transfers on behalf of their wives or minor children since they are considered one entity under marriage laws throughout most states in America at this time period. Therefore, Justice Field disagreed with the majority's ruling and maintained his position against allowing individuals other than husbands themselves to transfer real estate belonging to married women or minor children without proper authorization from them first