Walker v. Dreville was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Walker, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Dreville, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Walker paid the full amount, but Dreville refused to deliver the boat. Walker then sued Dreville for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Dreville was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Dreville had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract and that Walker was entitled to damages. The Court also held that Walker was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as any other damages that he had suffered as a result of Dreville's breach. In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of upholding contracts and enforcing their terms. The Court noted that contracts are essential to the functioning of a free market economy and that parties must be held accountable for their obligations under the law. The Court also noted that contracts should be enforced in a fair and equitable manner, and that parties should not be allowed to take advantage of one another.

In Walker v. Dreville, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties for the sale of land could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute prohibiting such contracts. The majority opinion held that because the contract violated public policy, it could not be enforced by either party. Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion that public policy should prevent enforcement of an illegal agreement, he felt there were other considerations at play which should have allowed for enforcement in this case. Specifically, Field argued that since both parties had acted in good faith and relied upon each other to fulfill their obligations under the contract before its illegality was discovered, they should still be able to enforce it despite its invalidity under state law. He further noted that allowing them to do so would also serve as an incentive for people to act honestly and responsibly when entering into agreements with one another going forward.