Terry v. McLure is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1881. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Terry, had entered into a contract with the defendant, McLure, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Terry paid McLure $1,000 as a down payment and agreed to pay the remaining $1,000 when the steamboat was delivered. However, McLure failed to deliver the steamboat and Terry sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that McLure was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that McLure had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and that Terry was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Terry was entitled to recover the $1,000 down payment, as well as any other damages that he had suffered as a result of the breach. The Court's decision in Terry v. McLure established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the non-breaching party is entitled to recover any money that they have paid in advance. This case is still cited today as an example of the legal principles of contract law.

Justice Field wrote the dissenting opinion in Terry v. McLure, arguing that the majority had incorrectly interpreted a contract between two parties and failed to consider relevant evidence. He argued that there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendant had agreed to pay for goods received from plaintiff, but instead of paying he offered land as payment which was rejected by plaintiff. The court should have considered this offer when determining whether or not an agreement existed between both parties; however, it did not do so and instead found against defendant on summary judgment without considering all of the facts presented before them. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that if a jury were allowed to hear all of the evidence then they would be able to make a more informed decision about what actually happened between both parties rather than relying solely on one interpretation of their contract.