The Steamboat Northern Belle v. John Robson was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the Steamboat Northern Belle and John Robson, a passenger on the boat. Robson had purchased a ticket to travel from New York to Albany on the boat, but the boat was delayed due to a mechanical issue. Robson sued the owners of the boat for breach of contract, claiming that they had failed to provide the service he had paid for. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Robson, finding that the owners of the boat had breached their contract with Robson by failing to provide the service he had paid for. The Court held that the owners of the boat were liable for damages, and ordered them to pay Robson the amount of his ticket. The Court also held that the owners of the boat were liable for any additional damages that Robson had suffered as a result of the delay. The decision in this case established an important precedent in contract law, as it established that a party who fails to fulfill their contractual obligations can be held liable for damages. This case also established that a party who suffers damages as a result of a breach of contract can be compensated for those damages.

In the case of The Steamboat Northern Belle v. John Robson, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced in court when it had been made without consideration and was not supported by any form of writing. In this particular instance, Robson had agreed to pay for passage on the steamboat but then refused to do so after boarding. The majority opinion held that since there was no written agreement or consideration involved, there could be no legal action taken against him as he did not breach any contractual obligations. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that even though an oral agreement is generally unenforceable in court due to lack of evidence, if one party has already performed their part of the bargain then they should still receive compensation for their services rendered regardless of whether or not a written document exists. He further stated that such agreements are often necessary in everyday life and thus should be recognized by courts as valid contracts which can be enforced accordingly when needed.