Wilson v. Riddle is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Missouri. The plaintiff, Wilson, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Riddle, in 1876. Riddle, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received full payment for the land. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Wilson, ruling that the sale was valid and that Wilson was the rightful owner of the land. The Court reasoned that, under Missouri law, a sale of land was valid even if full payment had not been made, as long as the buyer had made a good faith effort to pay the full amount. The Court also noted that Wilson had made several payments to Riddle over the course of several years, and that Riddle had accepted these payments without objection. The Court's decision in Wilson v. Riddle established an important precedent in Missouri law, and it has been cited in numerous subsequent cases. The ruling affirmed the principle that a sale of land is valid even if full payment has not been made, as long as the buyer has made a good faith effort to pay the full amount.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wilson v. Riddle, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that a state court had no authority to grant an injunction against a federal officer acting within his official capacity, as it would be tantamount to granting relief from acts of Congress itself. Furthermore, he noted that if such injunctions were allowed then states could interfere with federal officers' duties and impede their ability to carry out congressional mandates. Additionally, Justice Field argued that even if the state court did have jurisdiction over this case, its ruling should not be given full faith and credit by other courts because it violated principles of comity between states and the federal government; allowing one state’s laws or judgments to control another is inconsistent with our system of dual sovereignty. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by asserting that while there may have been some injustice done here due to conflicting laws between two sovereign entities (the United States and California), this was something for Congress alone—not any individual court—to address through legislation or treaty-making power granted under Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 of the Constitution