Sullivan v. Burnett was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Sullivan and Burnett, in which Sullivan agreed to pay Burnett a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of land. Sullivan failed to make the payment, and Burnett sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that Sullivan had failed to make the payment, and that Burnett had suffered a loss as a result. The Court held that Burnett was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and that Sullivan was liable for the amount of money that Burnett had lost. The Court also noted that Burnett was entitled to interest on the amount of money that Sullivan had failed to pay. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Sullivan and Burnett was valid and enforceable, and that Burnett was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court also held that Burnett was entitled to interest on the amount of money that Sullivan had failed to pay.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Sullivan v. Burnett, arguing that the Court should not have reversed a decision of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that under Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution, which states "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State," it was incumbent upon all courts to respect judgments from other state courts unless they were proven wrong by clear evidence or had been overturned on appeal within their own state court system. In this case there was no such proof presented; thus Justice Field believed that California's judgment should stand as valid until it had been overturned by an appellate court within its own jurisdiction. Furthermore he argued that even if there were some irregularities with regard to how proceedings unfolded in California's lower court system - for example if certain procedural rules weren't followed - those issues could still be addressed without overturning a final judgment rendered by a higher-level court like California's Supreme Court.