Williams v. Baker was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1872. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Williams, had contracted with the defendant, Baker, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Williams had paid $1,000 in cash and agreed to pay the remaining $1,000 in installments. However, Baker refused to deliver the steamboat until the full amount was paid. Williams then sued Baker for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Baker was in breach of contract and that Williams was entitled to damages. The Court found that the contract was valid and binding, and that Baker had no right to withhold delivery of the steamboat until the full amount was paid. The Court also held that Williams was entitled to recover the $1,000 he had already paid, as well as damages for the breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Baker was in breach of contract and that Williams was entitled to damages. The Court found that the contract was valid and binding, and that Baker had no right to withhold delivery of the steamboat until the full amount was paid. The Court also held that Williams was entitled to recover the $1,000 he had already paid, as well as damages for the breach of contract.

In Williams v. Baker, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that included an agreement for one party to pay money in exchange for land could be enforced if it had not been properly recorded. The majority of the court held that such contracts were enforceable and did not need to be recorded in order for them to be valid. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion and argued that recording should have been required before any enforcement of the contract could take place. He reasoned that without proper recording, there would be no way of knowing who owned what property or when certain transactions took place; thus making it difficult for individuals involved in real estate transactions to protect their interests adequately. Furthermore, he noted how important recordation is as a means of providing notice about title claims so as to prevent fraud or other unlawful activities related thereto. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that all contracts involving real estate should require some form of recordation before they can become legally binding on both parties involved