Van Reynegans v. Bolton is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1877. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff, Van Reynegans, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Bolton, to purchase a tract of land in Arkansas. The contract stated that the purchase price was to be paid in installments, with the final payment due in 1876. Van Reynegans had made all of the payments on time, but Bolton refused to convey the land to him. Van Reynegans then brought suit against Bolton, claiming that he had breached the contract by refusing to convey the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Bolton was liable for breach of contract. The Court also held that Van Reynegans was entitled to damages for the breach, and that he was entitled to a conveyance of the land. The Court ordered Bolton to convey the land to Van Reynegans, and to pay him damages for the breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Van Reynegans was entitled to a conveyance of the land and damages for the breach of contract. The Court ordered Bolton to convey the land to Van Reynegans and to pay him damages for the breach.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Van Reynegans v. Bolton, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or sound legal reasoning. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms and conditions, regardless of whether one party had an advantage over the other at the time of formation. Furthermore, he argued that if a court were to interfere with such contracts on equitable grounds it would open up too much room for judicial discretion and could lead to arbitrary decisions based on personal opinions rather than established law. In this case specifically, Justice Field believed that there was no evidence presented which showed any fraud or misrepresentation by either party when they entered into their agreement; thus he felt it inappropriate for a court to intervene in order to provide relief from what may have been an unwise bargain made by one side. Ultimately Justice Field concluded his dissent stating “The courts are bound strictly to enforce contracts as written” and therefore found himself unable agree with the majority's ruling in this case