Southern Development Company v. Silva was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the Southern Development Company and a man named Silva. Silva had agreed to purchase a tract of land from the company, but the company refused to deliver the deed to the land. Silva then sued the company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that Silva had given something of value in exchange for the land. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, meaning that Silva had not received anything of value in exchange for the land. The Court also held that the company was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the company had failed to deliver the deed to the land as promised, and that Silva was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Silva was entitled to specific performance of the contract, meaning that the company was required to deliver the deed to the land as promised. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the Southern Development Company and Silva was valid and enforceable, and that the company was liable for breach of contract. The Court also held that Silva was entitled to damages and specific performance of the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Southern Development Company v. Silva, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that it was not within the court's jurisdiction to decide whether or not an individual had been wrongfully deprived of their property rights by state legislation, as this is a matter for Congress alone. Furthermore, he noted that even if such matters were within the court’s purview, there must be some evidence presented which shows how exactly those rights have been violated before any action can be taken against them. In this case no such evidence existed; thus Justice Field concluded that it would set a dangerous precedent if courts could simply assume violations without any proof being provided first.