Wheeler v. Harris was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Wheeler, had contracted to purchase the steamboat from the defendant, Harris, for a certain sum of money. However, Harris 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 properly executed and that the parties had agreed to all of its terms. The Court also held that Harris was liable for damages for his breach of the contract. The Court ordered Harris to pay Wheeler the amount of money that had been agreed upon in the contract. In its decision, the Supreme Court established the principle that a contract is valid and enforceable if it is properly executed and the parties have agreed to all of its terms. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still used today to determine the validity of contracts.

In Wheeler v. Harris, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced in court when one of the parties had died before it was fully executed. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and should be considered void. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that there is no legal basis for denying enforcement to an otherwise valid contract simply because one party has passed away prior to its completion. He further noted that if courts are allowed to refuse enforcement on these grounds, then they would also have the power to deny relief even when both parties are still alive but unable or unwilling to complete their obligations under the agreement due solely to death-related circumstances beyond their control. As such, he concluded that any attempt by courts at refusing enforcement of contracts based on death should be rejected as unconstitutional and unjustified interference with private contractual rights