Waterville v. Van Slyke was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1886. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. The plaintiff, Waterville, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Van Slyke, to purchase a piece of land. The contract stated that Van Slyke would convey the land to Waterville upon payment of the purchase price. Waterville paid the purchase price, but Van Slyke refused to convey the land. Waterville then brought suit against Van Slyke for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Waterville was entitled to specific performance of the contract. The Court reasoned that since Waterville had fully performed its obligations under the contract, Van Slyke was obligated to convey the land to Waterville. The Court also held that Waterville was entitled to damages for the delay in conveying the land. The Court noted that Waterville had been deprived of the use of the land for a period of time and was therefore entitled to damages for the delay. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Waterville was entitled to specific performance of the contract and damages for the delay in conveying the land. The Court's decision established that a party who has fully performed its obligations under a contract is entitled to specific performance and damages for any delay in conveying the land.

In Waterville v. Van Slyke, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment of foreclosure and sale in favor of a mortgagee is binding on subsequent purchasers who had no notice of the proceedings. The majority opinion held that such judgments were not binding on those with no knowledge or notice, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that when an individual purchases property subject to a lien or encumbrance they are bound by it regardless if they have knowledge or not; otherwise, there would be too much uncertainty surrounding real estate transactions and mortgages could never be enforced as intended. Furthermore, he noted that even without actual knowledge one should still take steps to investigate any potential liens before purchasing land so as to avoid being surprised later by unexpected claims against their title.