Thompson v. Perrine is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1881. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of New Jersey. The plaintiff, Thompson, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Perrine, in 1867. Perrine, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received full payment for the land. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Thompson, ruling that the sale was valid and that Thompson was the rightful owner of the land. The Court reasoned that the sale was valid because Thompson had paid the full amount of money that was agreed upon and that Perrine had accepted the payment. The Court also noted that Perrine had waited several years before challenging the sale, which indicated that he had accepted the payment and was satisfied with the transaction. In its decision, the Supreme Court established the principle that a sale is valid if the buyer pays the full amount of money that was agreed upon and the seller accepts the payment. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and is still used today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Thompson v. Perrine, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an absurd result. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a party who had acquired title through adverse possession could not be divested of it by another party claiming superior title unless they were able to prove their claim with clear and convincing evidence. In this case, he noted that there was no such proof presented by either side; thus, both parties should have been allowed to retain their respective titles as neither had proven superiority over the other. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that allowing one party’s claim without any proof while denying another’s would create an unjust situation where those with weaker claims are rewarded at the expense of those with stronger ones. As such, he concluded his dissent by urging for reversal of judgment on behalf of Perrine so as not to set a dangerous precedent which could potentially undermine property rights across America going forward.