Thompson v. Perrine is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1882. 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 1876. 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, under New Jersey law, a sale of land was valid even if full payment had not been made, as long as the buyer had made a good faith effort to pay. The Court also noted that Thompson had made several payments to Perrine over the course of several years, and that Perrine had accepted these payments without objection. The Court's decision in Thompson v. Perrine established an important precedent in New Jersey law, and has been cited in numerous subsequent cases. The ruling affirmed that a sale of land is valid even if full payment has not been made, as long as the buyer has made a good faith effort to pay.

Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in the case of Thompson v. Perrine, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to unjust results. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, when an individual has been wrongfully dispossessed from land they have held for more than twenty years, they are entitled to recover damages for their loss even if it is not possible to restore them back into possession. The majority had ruled otherwise in this case by holding that since no specific amount of damages could be determined with certainty, then none should be awarded at all. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and stated that such a ruling would leave individuals who were wrongfully dispossessed without any remedy whatsoever despite having suffered real losses due to another person's wrongful act or omission. He also noted how such a result was particularly harsh given how long Mr Perrine had held his property before being wrongfully deprived of it - over thirty-five years - yet he still received nothing as compensation for his loss because there was no way to determine exactly what amount he should receive as damages.