William Stitt v. Alfred Huidekoper was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. Stitt, the plaintiff, had contracted with Huidekoper, the defendant, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Stitt paid the full amount, but Huidekoper refused to deliver the boat. Stitt then sued Huidekoper for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Huidekoper was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Stitt had fulfilled his obligations under the contract and that Huidekoper had failed to deliver the boat as promised. The Court also held that Stitt was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court awarded Stitt $1,500 in damages, which was the difference between the contract price and the market value of the boat. The Court's decision in this case established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This case also established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for the difference between the contract price and the market value of the goods or services. This case is still cited today as an example of the law of contracts.

In the case of William Stitt v. Alfred Huidekoper, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider certain facts. He noted that under existing laws, if an individual was wrongfully dispossessed of land by another person who then sold it to a third party, they could still recover damages from both parties involved in the transaction. In this particular case, Stitt had been wrongfully dispossessed of his property by Huidekoper and subsequently sold it to another party; however, since there were no allegations or proof presented that either party knew about any wrongdoing at the time of sale, Justice Field believed that neither should be held liable for damages as they did not have knowledge or intent necessary for liability under such circumstances. Furthermore, he argued that even though Huidekoper may have acted negligently when taking possession of Stitt's property without proper legal authority or title documents showing ownership rights over said land - this alone was insufficient grounds for holding him accountable as negligence does not equate with fraud nor is it sufficient enough evidence to prove wrongful intention on behalf of either defendant.