Terry v. Sharon is a United States 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 California. The plaintiff, Terry, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Sharon, and that Sharon had failed to deliver the deed to the property. Terry sought to have the court declare him the rightful owner of the land. The Supreme Court held that Terry was the rightful owner of the land. The Court found that Terry had provided sufficient evidence to prove that he had purchased the land from Sharon and that Sharon had failed to deliver the deed. The Court also found that Terry had taken possession of the land and had made improvements to it, which further established his ownership. The Court's decision in Terry v. Sharon established that a purchaser of land can establish ownership even without a deed if they can prove that they have taken possession of the land and made improvements to it. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving disputes over land ownership.

In Terry v. Sharon, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and should not be recognized by courts of law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while states have the right to regulate certain aspects of contract formation, they do not have an absolute power over all contracts within their borders. He further argued that when a contract is validly formed under state law but violates some other statute or regulation, it should still be enforced unless there is clear evidence showing otherwise. In his view, allowing states to invalidate any agreement which violated one of its laws would lead to chaos and uncertainty in commercial transactions across the country as well as undermine public confidence in contractual obligations generally