Charles W. Tillinghast and Joseph M. Warren v. Morriss Van Buskirk et al was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1868. The case involved a dispute over a contract between the two parties. Tillinghast and Warren had contracted with Van Buskirk and his associates to build a railroad in the state of Indiana. The contract specified that the railroad would be built within a certain amount of time and that the two parties would share the profits from the railroad. Van Buskirk and his associates failed to complete the railroad within the specified time frame and Tillinghast and Warren sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tillinghast and Warren, finding that Van Buskirk and his associates had breached the contract and were liable for damages. The Court also held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the two parties were entitled to the profits from the railroad. The Court also held that the two parties were entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

In the case of Charles W. Tillinghast and Joseph M. Warren v. Morriss Van Buskirk et al, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another in regards to a contract dispute involving real estate located in yet another state. The majority opinion held that since all parties were not present within the same jurisdiction, it did not have authority to hear such cases and dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that states should be allowed to exercise their power over contracts made between its own citizens regardless if they are outside its borders or involve property located elsewhere as long as there is no conflict with federal law or other states’ laws on similar matters. He further argued that allowing each individual state court to decide these types of disputes would lead to greater uniformity among decisions across different jurisdictions which would ultimately benefit society at large by providing more certainty when entering into contractual agreements between individuals living in different parts of the country