Weir v. Morden was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Weir, had contracted to purchase the steamboat from the defendant, Morden, for a certain sum of money. However, Morden refused to deliver the steamboat, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was valid because it had been signed by both parties and was supported by consideration. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of consideration, as the consideration had been provided by both parties. The Court also held that the defendant was liable for damages for breach of contract. The Court found that the defendant had breached the contract by refusing to deliver the steamboat, and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable, and that the defendant was liable for damages for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Weir v. Morden, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key point of law. He argued that under Missouri state law, which was applicable in this case, an executor or administrator could not be held liable for debts incurred by their predecessor unless they were expressly authorized to do so by statute or contract. In this case there was no such authorization and thus Justice Field believed that the lower court's decision should have been affirmed rather than reversed as it had been by the majority opinion. Furthermore he noted that even if there had been some kind of agreement between Morden and his predecessor regarding liability for debt repayment then it would still have only applied to those debts existing at the time of said agreement; any subsequent debt incurred after such an agreement would not be covered and therefore Morden should not be held liable for them either way.