Tyler v. Defrees was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1870. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Tyler, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Defrees, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Tyler paid the full amount, but Defrees refused to deliver the boat. Tyler then sued Defrees for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the performance of the other. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had an obligation to perform. The Court held that Tyler was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court awarded Tyler the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as the costs of the lawsuit. The Court also held that Defrees was liable for any damages that Tyler had suffered as a result of the breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Tyler was entitled to damages for the breach of contract and that Defrees was liable for any damages that Tyler had suffered as a result of the breach. The Court awarded Tyler the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as the costs of the lawsuit.

In Tyler v. Defrees, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident of that state against another non-resident who resided in the same foreign country as the plaintiff. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and reversed the decision of the lower court. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no constitutional prohibition preventing states from exercising jurisdiction over cases involving parties residing outside their borders; secondly, he maintained that if Congress had intended to limit such authority then they would have done so explicitly through legislation rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation. He concluded his dissent by stating “I cannot assent to any limitation upon [the] power [of states], unless clearly expressed or necessarily implied” in order for justice and fairness between all parties involved in litigation proceedings across different jurisdictions within our nation's legal system.